Can you prove evolution wrong

reply to post by flyingfish

So... by your logic you must have the supernatural elements available to believe in it?
Muppet's and Harry Potter are qualified to believe in it

Your being ignorant and your mocking what you don't know or understand.

reply to post by MrXYZ

Correct...I can't do magic

So your entire reasoning depends on magic...that's really really sad

Magic and supernatural have very little to do with each other. Magic is typically used to fool people. Supernatural is an element that is just the way it is naturally. They don't cross paths except that you might think your getting fooled witnessing something supernatural when its those abilitys are normal.

reply to post by MrXYZ

What historical documentation? The bible? It's demonstrably not accurate...so I hope you don't mean that

The bible may be hard to believe in some sections based on the fact that we are not able to recreate the supernatural elements.

And yes the bible is a historical document, in case you have missed what I have repeatedly posted, here it is again...

the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Barcs

You pretty much just ignored and dismissed everything i said without providing evidence again... Not surprising. You've been thoroughly demolished in this thread. Give it up.

Did I miss something? I seriously doubt that I'm getting demolished on this thread. The fact is I'm not able to find anyone that can contest my theories with fair resistance, which is why I'm still on this thread.

Harry potter is about magic, spells, rituals, etc... According to this it is supernatural. So you think magic is real?

You can't just make words to mean what you want them to. Magic is supernatural, therefor Harry Potter is supernatural and by your definition that means it is real.

No some things that are magic are supernatural which is not to say that all things that are supernatural are magic.

Big difference. But nice try.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

So... by your logic you must have the supernatural elements available to believe in it?
Muppet's and Harry Potter are qualified to believe in it

Your being ignorant and your mocking what you don't know or understand.

That's rich coming from a guy who is clueless on every level.
Okay smart azz, tell us whats so hard understand about the supernatural.

reply to post by colin42


I'm assuming these replies are for me, as there is no reply information in this reply.

Thats what you get for not paying attention as I even pin pointed the reference a few times.

The reason why it was hard to find your quote was you had clipped a whole paragraph to get the phrase you wanted ignoring all the other information in that paragraph that shows the bible is far from a clear document and again shows that you are very dishonest.

Well thats why it was chopped, so you would have no problem finding it, otherwise you may have scanned over it and missed it. Originally I just posted the link and you didn't find it that way either. Probably because you didn't see the need to read the whole page.

So what are you saying, they lied? It was quoted as a historical document.

Read cherry Picking. I am saying you mined for a quote to suit your argument so you lied. You ignored all the other information that shows the bible is not clear documentation

Granted it wasn't a headline, but they still quoted it, therefore its not a lie.

They ALL prove that we aren't from here except that some are just easier to understand.

I only have your word for that. Your word has been proven to be no good,

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'

Well I gave bible info allready, never gave Pye, sitchen, or von daniken, however all you would do once I did, was cherry pick informaton to try to discredit each of them, so why bother. You have allready done this and totally dismissed the rest of their work as invalid. You were apparently cherry picking long before I was.

The NIV and ESD are both good and I'm not sure of the origin.

So you are not sure of your so called documents origin. That alone makes means it is not a clear historical document.

As if only certain ones are going to be clear. They are all published under the title of the bible, thats good enough. You can only nit pic so much.

It's thought to have been, YOUR assuming.
Here is your dishonesty again. They think the verbal history was passed down. Not documentation from first hand witnesses as you claim. Again far from a clear historical document. They are definitely assuming and you are definitely denying the truth again.

Actually your the one being dishonest, they made it clear they are assuming.

Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.

Do you actually understand English?
Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.
Do you know what Surmise means?
To infer (something) without sufficiently conclusive evidence.

To make a guess or conjecture.

An idea or opinion based on insufficiently conclusive evidence; a conjecture..
Reconstruction my a$$. It is however you dishonestly denying what your own link is telling you

I wasn't trying to pass that off as straight findings, I was trying to tell you the same thing. Those sections are noted in the bible anyhow. In certain additions they tell you where each part of the information came from.

So if your trying to say that the bible is not 100% in order, I agree, I never claimed otherwise.

Regarding the events that took place I'll agree that its probably as accurate as we are going to get.

That is it is also an admission that the bible is not a clear historical document.

So I have proved my point again and even though you decided to give me your opinions and not a reasoned argument supported with evidence you still lost.

That's the second time and again there will not be a third.

Your making assumptions that the cherry picked sections are not in order. The fact is you don't know. So you cant win based on an assumption.
Do you have something that proves those sections to not be in order?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Correct...I can't do magic

So your entire reasoning depends on magic...that's really really sad

Magic and supernatural have very little to do with each other. Magic is typically used to fool people. Supernatural is an element that is just the way it is naturally. They don't cross paths except that you might think your getting fooled witnessing something supernatural when its those abilitys are normal.

They're exactly the same in that none has any objective evidence or proof behind them

reply to post by colin42

What historical documentation is that?

While your all happy and laughing. Where is the retraction you owe me Or are you so dishonest that you cannot bring yourself to admit your error?

The bible and what error are you talking about?

If your referring to the bible not being clear, that depends on what sections your talking about. If your making an assumption that its all bad (which I'm sure you do) based on that, you are wrong.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

What historical documentation? The bible? It's demonstrably not accurate...so I hope you don't mean that

The bible may be hard to believe in some sections based on the fact that we are not able to recreate the supernatural elements.

And yes the bible is a historical document, in case you have missed what I have repeatedly posted, here it is again...

the Bible is a historical document containing first-hand information

en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, a historical document that's demonstrably wrong when it comes to history and science in hundreds of cases. That is, unless you take the tooth "# it, everything's possible...just add a bit of magic and believe" approach to it all

Did I miss something?

Yes... everything.

I seriously doubt that I'm getting demolished on this thread.

Embarrassingly so... trust your peers the word is out your a joke, almost to the point I feel bad for you.

The fact is I'm not able to find anyone that can contest my theories with fair resistance, which is why I'm still on this thread.

Your ignorance and arrogance is strong. This is your problem.

reply to post by flyingfish


That pic perfectly summarizes tooth's stance on facts

Tooth, you really believe that the earth was created in 6 days, and that man was punished for eating a forbidden fruit after being convinced by a talking snake?

reply to post by MrXYZ

Yes, a historical document that's demonstrably wrong when it comes to history and science in hundreds of cases. That is, unless you take the tooth "# it, everything's possible...just add a bit of magic and believe" approach to it all

Or you could just take the supernatural out of it and call it not possible.

reply to post by flyingfish

Embarrassingly so... trust your peers the word is out your a joke, almost to the point I feel bad for you.

No one has produced anything that has proven the idea of intervention wrong. No one is able to produce target food for humans, no on e is able to produce a species that has a relationship with man. But I'm a joke, seriously you need to think next time.

reply to post by Barcs

Tooth, you really believe that the earth was created in 6 days, and that man was punished for eating a forbidden fruit after being convinced by a talking snake?

I never said I agree to those. Your just stereotyping me like the others are doing.

Profiling makes us all look bad.

I believe as a control measure we could have been punished for not obeying what was told.
I think Pye's video proves there were punishements as well.
As far as a talking snake, I don't know if anyone else ever realized but the bible is full of advanced technology. They had radio communications, atomic bombs, and the burning bush was probably just a radio device. The talking snake could have been many things, and it may not have actually of been a snake.

On the flip side it may also be possible that with supernatural intervention, or control that a snake could be made to appear to be able to talk.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Embarrassingly so... trust your peers the word is out your a joke, almost to the point I feel bad for you.

No one has produced anything that has proven the idea of intervention wrong. No one is able to produce target food for humans, no on e is able to produce a species that has a relationship with man. But I'm a joke, seriously you need to think next time.

Even if we are to suspend reality for a second, how does intervention explain diversity without evolution.
Joking aside, the fact your in such denial about observable reality, and intrenched so deeply within fantasy, it's really not that funny.
I apologize for poking fun at your illness.

reply to post by itsthetooth

No one is able to produce target food for humans...

Oh shove an apple down that throat of yours

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs

 

Tooth, you really believe that the earth was created in 6 days, and that man was punished for eating a forbidden fruit after being convinced by a talking snake?

I never said I agree to those. Your just stereotyping me like the others are doing.

Profiling makes us all look bad.

I believe as a control measure we could have been punished for not obeying what was told.
I think Pye's video proves there were punishements as well.
As far as a talking snake, I don't know if anyone else ever realized but the bible is full of advanced technology. They had radio communications, atomic bombs, and the burning bush was probably just a radio device. The talking snake could have been many things, and it may not have actually of been a snake.

On the flip side it may also be possible that with supernatural intervention, or control that a snake could be made to appear to be able to talk.

Yes...and maybe at one point pigs had rainbow colors and were soaring through the air like eagles :@@;

Just add the supernatural...easy

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well thats why it was chopped, so you would have no problem finding it, otherwise you may have scanned over it and missed it. Originally I just posted the link and you didn't find it that way either. Probably because you didn't see the need to read the whole page.

Nope. Its called Quote Mining

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[

You cut it that way because you only looked at what supported your claim. You ignored all that did not even within the same paragraph and you are doing it still. Shockingly dishonest.

Granted it wasn't a headline, but they still quoted it, therefore its not a lie.

Nope quoting out of context the way you did is lying by omission.

Well I gave bible info allready, never gave Pye, sitchen, or von daniken, however all you would do once I did, was cherry pick informaton to try to discredit each of them, so why bother. You have allready done this and totally dismissed the rest of their work as invalid. You were apparently cherry picking long before I was.

The above does not constitute a logical argument with supporting evidence as is required.

'You have not provided any supporting evidence for your claims. No comment until you do'

As if only certain ones are going to be clear. They are all published under the title of the bible, thats good enough. You can only nit pic so much.

First you admit you do not know the origins and now you say in your opinion its good enough. News for you: 'Don’t know' and 'looks good enough to me' does not qualify your use of the bible as 'a clear historical document'. End of.

Actually your the one being dishonest, they made it clear they are assuming.

Agreed they made it clear. You on the other hand denied it. Now you changed your mind and claim it was me. Dishonesty of a child. (10 - 12 at best).

I wasn't trying to pass that off as straight findings, I was trying to tell you the same thing.

You know your dishonesty is the only tool you seem to have left. You replied to my argument, supported by a quote from YOUR link:

Looks like more of a reconstruction or a repair than anything else.

your link says 'Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the versions that do survive.' so you again was not trying to tell me the same thing. You were maintaining your dishonesty.

Word of mouth does not constitute a clear historical document.
Might have been passed down for 300 years by word of mouth does not constitute a firsthand witness or a reliable source for the bible we see today. Which alone makes it NOT a clear historical document which is why the religious scholars debate the meanings to this very day.

So if your trying to say that the bible is not 100% in order, I agree, I never claimed otherwise

Claiming the bible to be 'a clear historical document' is you claiming otherwise.

Also why did you ignore this point from your link that I asked you to comment on?

For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters

Cherry picking what you will answer now are you? Please address this point as you should have.

Your making assumptions that the cherry picked sections are not in order. The fact is you don't know. So you cant win based on an assumption.
Do you have something that proves those sections to not be in order?

Explain. Your cherry picked sections? If you mean the bibles cherry picked sections then you are in even bigger trouble with your claim.

reply to post by flyingfish

Even if we are to suspend reality for a second, how does intervention explain diversity without evolution.
Joking aside, the fact your in such denial about observable reality, and intrenched so deeply within fantasy, it's really not that funny.
I apologize for poking fun at your illness.

Who says I'm in denial? I'm in total agreeance with everything I have been directed to that offered proof. Now what I got from the links and what you make out of them are different, but that's not to say I deny them.

If we were created by another being, I think that says it all about diversity. It is possible that everything was created.

As an example, I have a friend who married into a family that owns rights to a man made potato. They crossed a russet with a ruby red and ended up with large ruby reds. Now if you checked the DNA on this new potatoe it might show to be millions of years old but the fact is its new.