Trump crying about Stephen Curry... lol

[hillelslovak87]

1. It didn't give a timeline of genesis You must have bad reading comprehension.

2. I dont know exactly how or why it was created. What a silly strawman

3. True
4. True
5. Don't fret, I'm answering all your questions now.

Oh, so God was reinforcing the first book with the second, by directly contradicting it in the timeline of events. That makes so much sense.

You dont know why the universe was created? Maybe you should read your bible. Hint: It was for God's Glory, with divine breath.

 

[hillelslovak87]

1. I never made a "God of the gaps" argument so you can save it. You made the claim that reptiles predated mammals and cited the fossil record. Youd have failed to answer how the fossil record could prove when something began to exist.

2. You said God was wrong but now, by your own admission he could have been right? Way to shoot yourself in the foot

You are stating that all the fossils in the world cant show how how they got there. Evolution through natural selection explains this quite easily. If your god of the gaps argument was pertaining to the origins of life, yes, scientists do not know exactly how that happened. The God of the gaps is in your seeming assertion that since science doesn't currently know, God did it.

The Bible uses a word with two possible translations. This would put the likelihood of either being correct at 50/50. The rational work then begins, shading percentage points one way or the other. Looking at the beliefs of the peoples of the time, it seems logical that combined with the biblical texts, that they thought the moon was a light.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

1. Oh, so God was reinforcing the first book with the second, by directly contradicting it in the timeline of events. That makes so much sense.

2. You dont know why the universe was created? Maybe you should read your bible. Hint: It was for God's Glory, with divine breath.

1. You're saying he contradicted himself because you have bad reading comprehension.

2. It was for God's glory. You think I pretend to perfectly understand this as you suggested?

 

[hillelslovak87]

1. You're saying he contradicted himself because you have bad reading comprehension.

2. It was for God's glory. You think I pretend to perfectly understand this as you suggested?

The Genesis story clearly gives two separate accounts of the timeline of creation. You are being incredibly dishonest by pretending as if these words are not written clearly in Genesis.

I think all you need to know is that it was for God's glory. Fortunately, this requires zero work on your part to actually have to explain anything, like how science does it's work.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

How the hell did this become about the bible?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

1. You are stating that all the fossils in the world cant show how how they got there.

2. Evolution through natural selection explains this quite easily.

3. If your god of the gaps argument was pertaining to the origins of life, yes, scientists do not know exactly how that happened. The God of the gaps is in your seeming assertion that since science doesn't currently know, God did it.

4. The Bible uses a word with two possible translations. This would put the likelihood of either being correct at 50/50. The rational work then begins, shading percentage points one way or the other. Looking at the beliefs of the peoples of the time, it seems logical that combined with the biblical texts, that they thought the moon was a light.

1. Correct. Do you agree or disagree?
2. What physical evidence do you have that reptiles predated mammals?
3. I never made that argument. You argued reptiles predated mammals and claimed to have mountains of evidence. I asked for your proof. Reading comprehension rears its ugly head again
4. God was wrong but he could have been right? Brilliant

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

1. The Genesis story clearly gives two separate accounts of the timeline of creation. You are being incredibly dishonest by pretending as if these words are not written clearly in Genesis.

2. I think all you need to know is that it was for God's glory. Fortunately, this requires zero work on your part to actually have to explain anything, like how science does it's work.

1. According to you. I've given answer.

2. I agree. God's glory requires no work from me. It's pretty cool huh?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

How the hell did this become about the bible?

Because this guy hates believers so much as to have this whole argument over a gotcha with Trump. I'm simply a guy defending my beliefs when questioned

 

[hillelslovak87]

1. Correct. Do you agree or disagree?
2. What physical evidence do you have that reptiles predated mammals?
3. I never made that argument. You argued reptiles predated mammals and claimed to have mountains of evidence. I asked for your proof. Reading comprehension rears its ugly head again
4. God was wrong but he could have been right? Brilliant

1. According to you. I've given answer.

2. I agree. God's glory requires no work from me. It's pretty cool huh?

1. Disagree. We know how animals evolved into other animals over many generations. The writer of Genesis seems to think God created them in their current states.

2 and 3. The evidence is the mountains of transitional fossils showing distinct evolutionary origins and lines of mutation and evolution, genetic mapping of the genomes of all types of animals, the fossil's placement in sedimentary layers consistent with geological data. Your book is wrong about this, despite you dishonestly pretending as if it does not say what it does in fact say.

4. Whoever wrote Genesis could have been right, or wrong. I think that consistent with the beliefs of people at the time, the writer or writers thought the moon was a light of it's own. Not a grievious mistake if the author was an ordinary man of his time. A pretty big mistake if one created the cosmos, and does not seem to know much about it.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Because this guy hates believers so much as to have this whole argument over a gotcha with Trump. I'm simply a guy defending my beliefs when questioned

I dont hate believers. I think your books are obvious fictions, and would like for you to actually either admit that they were wrong in places, try to defend them rationally, or simply say you dont need to, thus relying upon faith.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

1. Disagree. We know how animals evolved into other animals over many generations. The writer of Genesis seems to think God created them in their current states.

2 and 3. The evidence is the mountains of transitional fossils showing distinct evolutionary origins and lines of mutation and evolution, genetic mapping of the genomes of all types of animals, the fossil's placement in sedimentary layers consistent with geological data. Your book is wrong about this, despite you dishonestly pretending as if it does not say what it does in fact say.

4. Whoever wrote Genesis could have been right, or wrong. I think that consistent with the beliefs of people at the time, the writer or writers thought the moon was a light of it's own. Not a grievious mistake if the author was an ordinary man of his time. A pretty big mistake if one created the cosmos, and does not seem to know much about it.

1. How do we know that? Don't we use the fossil evidence? Fossil evidence can't state when something began to exist as I've already asserted.

2,3. Again, fossils don't show when something began to exist. Genetic mapping? Are you claiming to have DNA from the first reptile and first mammal to support your claim reptiles predated them? That is the context of this whole part of the discussion after all

4. You're showing your bias. You didn't understand the text and made a quick judgement. Now you're unwilling to admit that and stand behind your statement, even though your evidence suggests you could be wrong.

You were laughing all smug and arrogant like that God would make such a stupid "mistake". Where is all your bravado Now?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I dont hate believers. I think your books are obvious fictions, and would like for you to actually either admit that they were wrong in places, try to defend them rationally, or simply say you dont need to, thus relying upon faith.

I'm sure you could fool many with your first statement. Regarding your 2nd... What made this thread the place to emotionally vomit those feelings?

 

[hillelslovak87]

1. How do we know that? Don't we use the fossil evidence? Fossil evidence can't state when something began to exist as I've already asserted.

2,3. Again, fossils don't show when something began to exist. Genetic mapping? Are you claiming to have DNA from the first reptile and first mammal to support your claim reptiles predated them? That is the context of this whole part of the discussion after all

4. You're showing your bias. You didn't understand the text and made a quick judgement. Now you're unwilling to admit that and stand behind your statement, even though your evidence suggests you could be wrong.

You were laughing all smug and arrogant like that God would make such a stupid "mistake". Where is all your bravado Now?

1. Yes, the fossil record does not record the first instance of life. Invertebrates did not have bones, so it was impossible to genetically test when there is no matter to test. There is no reason to suspect that some deity is lurking before the first instance of life. This is God of the gaps

2-3. Scientists have scores of independent evolutionary lines in fossils that do indeed transition from dinosaurs and reptiles into avians and mammals. Researching the articles I provided will show this.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

4. I explained exactly why I think ti is clear that the person who wrote Genesis though the moon was a source of light, and while the text could be attributed one way or the other, other evidence about the beliefs of Jews and other people of the time shade the probability heavily in one direction.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I'm sure you could fool many with your first statement. Regarding your 2nd... What made this thread the place to emotionally vomit those feelings?

A. I dont really care about your assumption

B. I was not responding to a post by you with my post.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

1a. Yes, the fossil record does not record the first instance of life. Invertebrates did not have bones, so it was impossible to genetically test when there is no matter to test

1b There is no reason to suspect that some deity is lurking before the first instance of life. This is God of the gaps

2-3. Scientists have scores of independent evolutionary lines in fossils that do indeed transition from dinosaurs and reptiles into avians and mammals. Researching the articles I provided will show this.
http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

4. I explained exactly why I think ti is clear that the person who wrote Genesis though the moon was a source of light, and while the text could be attributed one way or the other, other evidence about the beliefs of Jews and other people of the time shade the probability heavily in one direction.

1a Thank you

1b I never suggested such in relation to the lack of evidence. My belief is separate from evolution and it's possible shortcomings

2,3 None of those fossils would prove that avians didn't exist prior. Also evidence for transitional fossils is EXTREMELY weak. We can talk about evolution for days I presume. It would distract from our discussion regarding the Bible though

4. You attempted to go with a literal meaning of lights and that didnt even prove God wrong. Wasn't that your whole claim?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

A. I dont really care about your assumption

B. I was not responding to a post by you with my post.

It was to rip I believe. My question stands. What made this thread the place to go all anti Christian?

 

[MacDuffle]

ITT we kill ourselves and spare the intelligent design debate

 

[hillelslovak87]

1a Thank you

1b I never suggested such in relation to the lack of evidence. My belief is separate from evolution and it's possible shortcomings

2,3 None of those fossils would prove that avians didn't exist prior. Also evidence for transitional fossils is EXTREMELY weak. We can talk about evolution for days I presume. It would distract from our discussion regarding the Bible though

4. You attempted to go with a literal meaning of lights and that didnt even prove God wrong. Wasn't that your whole claim?

Um, yes, the evidence does prove avians did not exist before dinosaurs. We know this with loads of independently evolved avian species, the genetic testing showing their genetic markers coming from dinosaurs, and the geological data that shows zero avians until well after the end of the period of dinosaurs. The evidence disproves the Genesis claim.

5. I attempted to go with a literal meaning? Um, yeah, God does not work in metaphor within Genesis.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It was to rip I believe. My question stands. What made this thread the place to go all anti Christian?

I called out Rip because he's always extolling the virtues of the bible, and yet defends a man who behaves in a way that is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus. You're the one who inserted yourself in, telling me I'm a hateful unbeliever and all this nonsense.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Um, yes, the evidence does prove avians did not exist before dinosaurs. We know this with loads of independently evolved avian species, the genetic testing showing their genetic markers coming from dinosaurs, and the geological data that shows zero avians until well after the end of the period of dinosaurs. The evidence disproves the Genesis claim.

5. I attempted to go with a literal meaning? Um, yeah, God does not work in metaphor within Genesis.

Um, no. Fossils don't tell you when things began to exist as much as you will pretend otherwise.

So says you...