News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

creation/evolution

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Drich0150

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.
examples???
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

Drich0150

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.
you mean to say that is the 'undoctrinated view?'

QuoteIt'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.
That's not always true is it. let's look at global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean globa climbate change. This 25 year old consensus in places literally contradicts 500 years of traditional science discovery and recorded temperature cycles. more over it out right contradicts principles in thermal dynamics that can not be reconciled with the 'science' being used. In short carbon in the atmosphere is one of several atoms that can "unpack" or release heat from a "sun ray" However there is a point of saturation where more carbon doesn't mean more heat is created in the same beam of sunlight. Remember/google it Carbon effectively only "unpacks" the available heat it can not produce more heat. The only thing that can proudce more heat in a ray of sunlight is the sun. meaning only the sun can put in more sunligh for the carbon atoms to unpack..

So here's the thing 500 years of science concerning global climate change has been telling us it is solar output that determines the earth median tempature Not green house gas.

So if you were right and your neive understanding of science was not driven by pop culture then we would still be adhearing to the 500 year old stuff they taught me when i was in school. but they don't do they? that must mean science is a whore selling it's legitmacy to whatever popular peer review wants it to say.


QuoteYou 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.
Your just aking my point for me... Expanding universe was laughed out of legitmacy till enough scientist got on board with the idea.
Quote
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.
I've heard of NASA and it's view while bush was funding the program and I heard it's view while obama was funding it's program and we will see what NASA has to say when it's budget is announced by this administration. or did you miss that the first time around?
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

Drich0150

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.

IDK kinda missed the boat on what the holy Spirit looks like and what the bible describes as a Christ like follower.
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

Mike Cl

What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Jason78

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 22, 2017, 03:34:03 PM
Which is just fine and dandy with "my version of things."

For you see if you read and or understood what it was I am saying is that you can plug any verion of evolution or anything like that in the literal seven day creation account without changing a word of the bible nor will you have to change a word of evolution for both to work at the same time.

No.  It isn't.


You don't even understand what it is you're trying to smoosh together from either a theological point of view or a scientific one.   The scientific concepts that you're trying to use have an actual basis in fact and reality.  And they directly contradict what is said in Genesis no matter how you try and interpret it.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Drich0150

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

Holy crap dude. why argue a point you haven't taken the time to understand? why not ask questions first?

Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So basically between verse 10 and verse 11 all of chapter 2 happens. what happens in chapter 2 read it yourself:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

but basically Adam was created, the garden, and eve. all between verse 10 and 11 of day 3.  That means the garden and everyone in it was seperate from the rest of creation. that includes "man and woman" created on day 6. I am saying day 6 man was evolved man or monkey man. no different than Adam, it just adam was a homo sapeian first. and it took however long you guys said it did for man outside the garden created on day 6 to catch up to day 3 adam.
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

Drich0150

Quote from: Jason78 on June 23, 2017, 02:50:05 PM
No.  It isn't.


You don't even understand what it is you're trying to smoosh together from either a theological point of view or a scientific one.   The scientific concepts that you're trying to use have an actual basis in fact and reality.  And they directly contradict what is said in Genesis no matter how you try and interpret it.
no they don't.

or rather explain how you think my theory changes anything genesis or evolution says. Or if you do nt understand my arguement I can explain how it doesn't change anything.
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

Mike Cl

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PM
Holy crap dude. why argue a point you haven't taken the time to understand? why not ask questions first?

Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. 5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So basically between verse 10 and verse 11 all of chapter 2 happens. what happens in chapter 2 read it yourself:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+2&version=ERV

but basically Adam was created, the garden, and eve. all between verse 10 and 11 of day 3.  That means the garden and everyone in it was seperate from the rest of creation. that includes "man and woman" created on day 6. I am saying day 6 man was evolved man or monkey man. no different than Adam, it just adam was a homo sapeian first. and it took however long you guys said it did for man outside the garden created on day 6 to catch up to day 3 adam.
Holy crap dude, can't you read?  You believe you come up with any old interpretation you want.  And I guess you can.  But it makes no sense.  But then, your precious bible makes no sense, either.  Your interpretations are as vapid and stupid as your god and your book.  You call this stupid, empty shit 'understanding'.  Yeah, I understand you are crazier than the fucking proverbial loon.  But you are a theist, so that fits. 

Yeah, I've read the bible from cover to cover.  And in the first and second chapters of the very beginning of this fiction, it makes it clear this is a fiction that is at war with itself.  You can prove just about anything you want--and you prove that--simply by making the words say what you want them to say.  Clearly, Chpt. 1 is about 'them' (the gods I guess) creating humans (clearly men and women were created at the same time and equal) and 'them' pronounced it good.  Chpt 2 is about the creation of man--adam--who was lonely (funny how god could not figure that out in advance) and so god created eve from adam's rib (why he would need a rib when he did not need one with adam is puzzling) and then the garden.  Two totally different creation myths.  Neither of which makes much sense and there is not way to make them fit as a single unit or myth; except in the muddled mind of theists like you.  But I have to hand it to you--your interpretation is unique; and very stupid--which is not unique for theists.  God you are stupid--but you seem to be enjoying it so have at it.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Baruch

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 23, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
What Adam and Eve.  The first chapter of genesis tells us:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I don't see an Adam or Eve there.  And who is this 'them'???

Biblical exegesis isn't your thing ;-)  Gotta get to the original Hebrew!  Bereshit 1:27 is key for me!
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.

aitm

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PM


Genesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden)

Kinda skips over the part where it claims the sky is water....I won't call you a dumb ass, but I will say that people who believe that shit are dumb asses.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: aitm on June 23, 2017, 07:52:25 PM
Kinda skips over the part where it claims the sky is water....I won't call you a dumb ass, but I will say that people who believe that shit are dumb asses.
Drich's in luck then, he doesn't believe a fucking word he says.
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

#71
Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 01:40:10 PM
you mean to say that is the 'undoctrinated view?'
And right here is the precise reason you're now in my twitfilter.

Not that I expected any better, considering your go-to when you can't refute a point or answer a question is to start namecalling (I spotted 'moron', 'retard' and 'douche').  But, I gave you your fair chance, and you peed it down your leg.

Based on the evidence that you can not reliably spell nor produce grammatically correct sentences, that you assert contradictions -- the most glaring being stating that the bible isn't a text book (one of the few true things you've said; I assume that was accidental) and then attempting to use it as one -- and the aforementioned ad hominems, I have data to suggest that you are illiterate, ignorant, and unpleasant.

And, also, ignored.  Enjoy your ego masturbation.
"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

Hydra009

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 04:13:14 PMGenesis 1:1-Gen 2:3 should all be in one chapter as this describes the 7 days of creation. This is 7 day of global creation (not including the garden) how do I know? because Genesis 2:4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth.
"How do I know?  The Bible says..."

What an impressive epistemology.

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Hydra009 on June 24, 2017, 09:05:21 PM
"How do I know?  The Bible says..."

What an impressive epistemology.
Drich never was a good troll.
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

fencerider

peer review science: when a scientist makes a claim other scientists will check the work for mistakes. The scientist better be right because a bogus claim could mean the end of that scientist's career. ...what does that have to do with a scientist sucking up for funding?

Quote from: Drich0150 on June 23, 2017, 01:40:10 PM
let's look at global cooling, I mean global warming, I mean globa climbate change. This 25 year old consensus in places literally contradicts 500 years of traditional science discovery and recorded temperature cycles. more over it out right contradicts principles in thermal dynamics that can not be reconciled with the 'science' being used. In short carbon in the atmosphere is one of several atoms that can "unpack" or release heat from a "sun ray" However there is a point of saturation where more carbon doesn't mean more heat is created in the same beam of sunlight. Remember/google it Carbon effectively only "unpacks" the available heat it can not produce more heat. The only thing that can proudce more heat in a ray of sunlight is the sun. meaning only the sun can put in more sunligh for the carbon atoms to unpack..

So here's the thing 500 years of science concerning global climate change has been telling us it is solar output that determines the earth median tempature Not green house gas.

Apparently nobody explained global warming to you.... The short version is that normally light from the sun comes in the atmosphere and bounces off the earth back into space. Pollution in the air gives light a place to bounce back to earth for a second, third, or fourth time. This increases UV exposure increasing sunburn and skin cancer. As for carbon dioxide, light comes in at a frequency where carbon dioxide is transparent. When it hits the earth some energy is absorbed that changes the frequency of the light to a frequency where carbon dioxide is opaque. So instead of the light-energy going back into space it gets trapped in the air
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.