Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

reply to post by Sleepwalk85


If you don't consider the Bible to be the inherent word of god, but instead a general book of inaccuracies and half truths, what is it that convinces you and folk like you to take it so seriously?

And while you're at it could you supply a source for your claim that most biblical scholars (experts) consider the book of genisis to be a singular creation tale?

reply to post by itsthetooth

That is false, no one has ever provided evidence that Target Food is wrong. What species experiment with food? I notice how you never reply with that. All animals of a species DO eat the same food, and thats already been proven.

There you go and lie again. Many examples of food experimentation have been given.

Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance of food.

Female mosquitoes and male mosquitoes DO NOT eat the same food. You admitted in this very thread that was the case and yet a few posts later you lie about that fact.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

When I see people argue what god is or isnt, I think of a lonely ant living in a nuclear facility. Will the ant ever understand where he is, how its built, what it does and can or will he ever reproduce what he sees in the facility?

This is the state of man arguing about his surroundings. Face it, you're the ant.

Actually, you're the ant.

reply to post by Sleepwalk85

That's great that you don't believe it is correct, but most Biblical scholars (experts) disagree with your uninformed reading of Genesis and claim that there are two separate and different creation stories.

Please provide evidence to that effect.

It's not my reading. It is a reading of Genesis shared by all but the fundamentals.

So please show us any evidence that most biblical scholars think it is a single myth.

It's unfortunate that this discussion is being held over the Internet, because I'd ask you to name one credible Biblical scholar. I doubt you could. I'm guessing you got your information about Genesis having two separate and different creation stories from yourself or some other uninformed person on the Internet.

Where did you get your incorrect notion that it was a single myth, some fundamentalist or tv preacher?

First, you're supposed to be supporting your idea that there are two separate and different creation stories in Genesis, not trying to show that men from the second millennium B.C. were unable to write an accurate science textbook.

Notice how you can't figure out that order matters.

How exactly are these two stories different? Of course, they're different in the sense that the focus is different, just like Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark focus on different parts of the life of Jesus. However, they all share a common core. The first Genesis story focuses on what was done in general, while the second is more personal. The main point of the beginning of Genesis is to let us know that God created everything.

Sorry this was too difficult for you to figure out. Everyone reading this notices how you completely ignored a slam dunk that the stories were different. The obvious being the different order of events.

You've given the rather trite excuse used by fundamentalists to reconcile the 2 very different myths in genesis.

Finally, Genesis isn't meant to be a science lecture. And why would you assume that men from the second millennium B.C. would know as much about science as the modern-day man?

Getting the order of events wrong is somehow science?

The two myths are very different.

As far as the 4 gospels are concerned, one of the main differences is that the gospels were not written at the same time and as more time passed the story was embellished. That happens when people tell stories; they become grander over time.

reply to post by stereologist

There you go and lie again. Many examples of food experimentation have been given.

I don't want your preceived examples, I want it documented or listed in an actuall diet.

Deer experiment with food regardless of the abundance of food.

Deer do NOT experiment for the 15th time, you can look up what their diet is and read it and see for yourself. In addition they mention no where in his diet that he experiments, but they do peg him for being an herbivore.

Female mosquitoes and male mosquitoes DO NOT eat the same food. You admitted in this very thread that was the case and yet a few posts later you lie about that fact.

True but all females do, which was actually my point, the comment was that all units of a species eat the same thing. So the males eat from nectar and plants while the female units consume blood.

reply to post by itsthetooth

I don't want your preceived examples, I want it documented or listed in an actuall diet.

Already posted.

Deer do NOT experiment for the 15th time, you can look up what their diet is and read it and see for yourself. In addition they mention no where in his diet that he experiments, but they do peg him for being an herbivore.

You're argument is from personal ignorance. Deer experiment regardless of the abundance of food. By your own definitions a diet cannot include experimenting with food. Your post is therefore irrational.

True but all females do, which was actually my point, the comment was that all units of a species eat the same thing. So the males eat from nectar and plants while the female units consume blood.

Not all mosquitoes have the same diet. End of story. You fail.

Not all bears eat the same diet. You admitted that before. You fail.

Originally posted by stereologist
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Anytime Sam.

When did the earth begin to be peopled?

"In the beginning all was chaos; the elements were mixed up in a state of confusion. Gradually those elements settled into their proper places, and then appeared the orders of living beings appropriate to the successive states of the globe."

Whence came the living beings that appeared upon the earth?

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, awaiting the favorable moment for their development. The organic principles came together on the cessation of the force which held them asunder, and those principles formed the germs of all the living beings that have peopled the earth. Those germs remained latent and inert, like the chrysalis and the seed of plants, until the arrival of the proper moment for the vivification of each species. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."Link

reply to post by Shadow Herder


So you believe in some mystical ideas. I do not.

There are no proper places for things to settle out. Life on Earth is not goal oriented or appropriate for stages of the Earth or whatever mumbo jumbo people make up. Life forms are not there idle waiting for their moment. That's not how biological processes work.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

So you believe in some mystical ideas. I do not.

There are no proper places for things to settle out. Life on Earth is not goal oriented or appropriate for stages of the Earth or whatever mumbo jumbo people make up. Life forms are not there idle waiting for their moment. That's not how biological processes work.

Your reading comprehension is lacking too much to understand such subjects.

Re-read what I said, So from your unknowing logic, humans just appeared from nothing for nothing
which is absurd and go against the law of cause and effect.
All that can be said on this subject, within the limits of your comprehension, is this: Worlds are formed by the condensation of the matter disseminated in space.

Whence came the living beings that appeared upon the earth?

"The germs of these were contained in the earth itself, awaiting the favorable moment for their development. The organic principles came together on the cessation of the force which held them asunder, and those principles formed the germs of all the living beings that have peopled the earth. Those germs remained latent and inert, like the chrysalis and the seed of plants, until the arrival of the proper moment for the vivification of each species. The beings of each species then came together and multiplied."

In your attempts to debunk fact with hypocrisy it has left you in a position of having no tangible beliefs or even facts to base you absurd theories or opinions on.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

Why will people argue Creation vs. Evolution when it is possible to have both?

Divide and conquer, obviously...

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Re-read what I said, So from your unknowing logic, humans just appeared from nothing for nothing
which is absurd and go against the law of cause and effect.
All that can be said on this subject, within the limits of your comprehension, is this: Worlds are formed by the condensation of the matter disseminated in space.

You need to take your own advice: your reading comprehension is lacking too much to understand such subjects.

As I pointed out there no proper places - that is a human notion of no relevance to the real world.

In your attempts to debunk fact with hypocrisy it has left you in a position of having no tangible beliefs or even facts to base you absurd theories or opinions on.

You posted no facts. You posted some religious claims of no importance.

reply to post by stereologist

I don't want your preceived examples, I want it documented or listed in an actuall diet.

Already posted.

You lie. Which might work out well for evolution things but this is different. Not a single person has presented anything showing experimentation. Tell me what species it was.

You're argument is from personal ignorance. Deer experiment regardless of the abundance of food. By your own definitions a diet cannot include experimenting with food. Your post is therefore irrational.

Oh your clever, and it just do happens that diet is documented, which means hes not experimenting.

Not all mosquitoes have the same diet. End of story. You fail.

I never said all mosquitoes, learn how to read. I said all units of a species. So all the female units eat the same thing, and all the males eat the same thing. I know what I said.

Not all bears eat the same diet. You admitted that before. You fail.

Bears in different regions will eat different things, but its still all within a known diet. We know what they eat.

reply to post by itsthetooth

You lie. Which might work out well for evolution things but this is different. Not a single person has presented anything showing experimentation. Tell me what species it was.

You lie as you always have. Species: deer, bears, mosquitoes, abalone, anteaters, rats, mice, voles, etc.

Oh your clever, and it just do happens that diet is documented, which means hes not experimenting.

You're argument is from personal ignorance. Deer experiment regardless of the abundance of food. By your own definitions a diet cannot include experimenting with food. Your post is therefore irrational.

I never said all mosquitoes, learn how to read. I said all units of a species. So all the female units eat the same thing, and all the males eat the same thing. I know what I said.

You lie. You even called the mosquito an exception to the rule.

Bears in different regions will eat different things, but its still all within a known diet. We know what they eat.

Again you admit the failure of Tooth's Folly. Not all members of a specie eat the same diet.

reply to post by stereologist

You lie as you always have. Species: deer, bears, mosquitoes, abalone, anteaters, rats, mice, voles, etc.

You keep saying that but without backing up your words with actuall proof, its just your opinion and I'm not interested in opinions, I'm more into facts.

You're argument is from personal ignorance. Deer experiment regardless of the abundance of food. By your own definitions a diet cannot include experimenting with food. Your post is therefore irrational.

Exactly, which means they are eating their normal diet, which means they aren't experimenting. There might be hope for you after all.

No thats not what I said, what I said was that if ITS LISTED in the diet, thats confirmation that its NOT experimentation unless thats specifically specified. Clean out your ears and open your eyes.

You lie. You even called the mosquito an exception to the rule.

I'm sorry but your example of male and female mosquitoes not eating the same meals is not proof that all species do it. Again your WRONG. Find a better example or learn how to debate.

Again you admit the failure of Tooth's Folly. Not all members of a specie eat the same diet.

I didn't say members, I said units, and the male and females can be different units. Find a better example. Just because mosquitoes don't consume the same food per unit is not proof that we all do it. Again your wrong.

Originally posted by bloodreviara
While i cant say its impossible for god to have done it,
the reason the two cannot co exist is because one relies
on a book that is obviously not the word of a deity and
that book makes claims that simply do not mesh up with
what science has discovered.

Basically the addition of god is pointless unless you
simply want religion to be true, it is not scientific to
say, we don't understand it so it must be god, with
no evidence to suggest or even support that claim
its a waste of time.

Also they want us to teach children lies so they may
remain relevant in world that is slowly moving away
from the fallacy that is religion, it fails at providing
morality, it fails at providing science to move the world
forward, it fails at understanding our ancient history
to the point its laughable.

we tried to live under religion, it was called the dark
ages, honestly id really rather not go back there where
the church decides what is and is not good science
based on the whims of their leaders and not scientific
evidence.......

Couldn't have put it better myself.
I am not athesist nor do I belong to a particular religion but in terms of religious evolution i feel Christianity and its many sects should take a leaf from Buddhism.

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

- Dalai Lama XIV

reply to post by itsthetooth

You keep saying that but without backing up your words with actuall proof, its just your opinion and I'm not interested in opinions, I'm more into facts.

That coming from someone that have never posted a fact in any thread.

Exactly, which means they are eating their normal diet, which means they aren't experimenting. There might be hope for you after all.

A non sequitur. Deer experiment with food means they experiment with potential foods off of their diet regardless of abundance.

No thats not what I said, what I said was that if ITS LISTED in the diet, thats confirmation that its NOT experimentation unless thats specifically specified. Clean out your ears and open your eyes.

Another shoddy attempt at pretending I posted something other than I did post.

I'm sorry but your example of male and female mosquitoes not eating the same meals is not proof that all species do it. Again your WRONG. Find a better example or learn how to debate.

Male and female mosquitoes have different DIETS. You are wrong. In the past you admitted you were wrong and called it an exception to the rule.

I didn't say members, I said units, and the male and females can be different units. Find a better example. Just because mosquitoes don't consume the same food per unit is not proof that we all do it. Again your wrong.

Actually you have used the word specie. If you want to further make a shambles with your Tooth's Folly change it to unit and then it will be even meaningless as to the purpose you originally claimed.

reply to post by itsthetooth


Ok, Tooth, usually I just lurk around. I've read just about every single post you have made, and am well aware of "tooth's folly" (cough your theory of target food and the like that has been proven wrong).

OVER 1,000 PAGES OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE SYSTEMATICALLY AND SCIENTIFICALLY DIS-PROVING YOUR THEORY. HOW MUCH PROOF AGAINST YOUR THEORY DO YOU NEED?

1,000 PAGES (+) AND YOUR ONLY REPLY (EXCEPT FOR LIES) IS "PROOF THAT TARGET FOOD IS WRONG."

1,000+ PAGES.

MODS, WHY DO YOU LET THIS JOKER CONTINUE TO PROMOTE A THEORY THAT HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN???