My HUGE problem with creationist thinking (re: Which version of creationism)

quote:

---

First of all, we can CLEARLY demonstrate natural selection through experimentation.

​

Take ANY population which contains genetic variability. Expose them to ANY source of harm or potential benefit. Apply time.

---

Your glitch:The harm caused does not alter the premise you apply it to. What you are saying is that if you produce a master painting, and if John Doe destroys it with an axe, it means the painting was produced by John Doe and not by you. Amazingly, almost all anti-creationists swallow such hog wash as science.A better view is that both the created entities are given specific attributes which interact with specific results; neither of them are produced by nature or exist without a producer. There is no such thing as nature in actual terms - this is just a metaphor we use to explain a state of being or an existing structure. An eco-system is the result of balanced interactions between many items with attributes - these are only conducive to a transcending governing source, else science is obsolete.

quote:

---

t was your side of this little debate that told him that the Earth was the center of the Universe in the first place. Because it was in the Bible. The same Bible which can never be wrong.

​

Sounds like you are doing a hell of a job defeating yourself

---

Now I see why you are so confused. You are mixing your bibles up. Genesis does not say what you do. In fact when one examines the calandar structure in Genesis, there is no possibility of not ascribing it only to a solar system with rotating and revovling sphears. The Hebrew bible is unique among all scriptures in not saying the earth is flat - get your facts righted.

One can clearly tell there is no such thing as NS; there is only a seed factor with a directive program which governs the resulting offspring. 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND' is the earliest scientific equation pertaining to reproduction which humanity possesses. ToE missed it and never even mentions it. Try doing w/o it!

Re english.I don't read 'the four corners of the earth' as a reference to a square. You do. You have a problem relating to creationism which is very close to theological disdain seen among the many religions. Your understanding of science is very questionable.

Enough not said. Please show us where it says the earth is flat in the Hebrew bible or anywhere in past history where people were persecuted for disputing this. You are confusing your bible and too embarrassed to admit this.

quote:

---

First of all, one painting is not a population of paintings.
Second, paintings do not reproduce themselves.

---

Wow. Really? Gee thanks. However, one cannot point to nature for instigating an offspring while disregarding the host seed, now can they?

quote:

---

A better view is that both the created entities are given specific attributes which interact with specific results; neither of them are produced by nature or exist without a producer.

​

If by "better" you mean "complete and utter bullshit" then yes.

​

A population of e. coli which does not have the genes necessary to consume citrate by DEFINITION does NOT have the genes necessary to consume citrate.

---

Nature done it. A seed follows nature's kind. A seed following its own kind is "complete and utter bullshit"

Why don't you start a discussion how FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH = a square?

No lies or falsehoods other than from you. Here is your brilliant response, which you now seem to understand was highly ignorant and back away from.

quote:

---

"corners". Enough said.

​

Spheres do not have corners.

---

There is no other reading than you were trying to make ridicule in reading a wonderful and commonly held phrase to refer to a square or a cornered block. It is hardly a response to my post which says one scripture uniguely does not claim the earth is flat - that's not an opinion but a fact. Of millions of vindicated stats in its verses and pages, you have thus far denied every single one with a lusting. You are arguing as one of the fundamenlaist religions you so despise.I ask you to please bite the bullet and hail an ancient scripture which never stated what all later scriptures erred in.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

'Seed' refers to a male and female ['host parentage'] issue ['output'], which reproduces the offspring. There is no way around this equation, nor a better way to say it and be understood of all generations of humanity. It is the first recorded equation to do with reproduction, and it is totally omitted in ToE. If you fail to acknowledge this it is your problem.The same goes for the first recorded listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat, as in Genesis, aka 'species' today. Here, reproduction by following a specie's seed output transcends that of environmental, skeletal and genes which disregarded the first and primal factor of the seed impact: before a life form can be accounted as the result or influence of environment, they are 'FIRST' the
result of what the seed data says.These are 100% vindicated today, while it would be astonishing if such premises were even considered and proven wrong. Genesis poses a double whammy of being correct as well as proving itself right in comparison to ToE. Must be very difficult for you to admit this - very fundamentalistic.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

LOL. Have you ever looked at the contradictory evidence against the "theory of evolution?"

---

Its against his religion, as in a blasphemy. He cannot even look into the millions of vindicated stats in Genesis, which contains the first recording of a finite universe in its very opening verse. Nor does he acknowledge the first listing of life form groupings in a hard copy text. I see the day when ToE will be banned as scientific myth - an honor even worse than many theologies.

My profound apologies. It was an honest error.

quote:

---

There are COUNTLESS examples of life forms on this planet that don't reproduce sexually and/or don't have traditional "male/female" sexes.

​

So, I'd say there are PLENTY of ways "around this equation".

---

I'd say you have typically missed the point. That the premise is even contemplated at such an early time, when belief was globally hinged on superstision, divine kings and head butting deities, is astonishing. It is the first introduction of a scientifically based recording of life and reproduction. You are also incorrect in your defense of it. Some life forms dispense their seed in different ways which may not be discernable at first glance, and some life forms may harbour single gendered seed issue - such anomalies are rampant and do not negate the equation that a seed follows its kind. All life forms do not have eyes either - yet they see!

quote:

---

The same goes for the first recorded listing of life form groupings by terrain and habitat, as in Genesis, aka 'species' today

​

Ridiculous.

​

The Egyptians recorded all that stuff, you can still go see it.

​

Not to mention it's also present in cave art in France, rock art in Australia, etc.

---

Show us the Egyptian text listing life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol - instead of just saying it here while rejecting everything - its a very simple matter to negate my post. The French rock color paintings were exposed as bogus: any intelligent person would have demanded a name of a human or a monument if they were able to perform color illustrations 30,000 years ago. This makes your rejections of my post equally bogus.

quote:

---

You keep making these claims that Genesis was the first recorded instance of X, Y, Z, but Genesis is YOUNGER than Egyptian heiroglyphs. YOUNGER than the Book of the Dead (after all, that's where Moses got the 10 commandments).

​

You need to rethink your timeline.

---

The Hebrew bible came late in the ancient scene, blatantly obvious and stated in the texts. It remains the first advanced alphabetical book despite being surrounded by older and greater nations - that's a big anomaly. The book of the dead is a poem, and full of occultism which has no bearing on science and the modern world today; it is fully disimilar to Genesis and this forum's thread debates today.

quote:

---

How old do you think Genesis is? When was it written? By who?

---

There appears no issue concerning its stated period. It is obviously older than the date of its first translation by the Greeks in 300 BCE [The Septuagint] and obviously older than the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE, as well as older than the book of Esther [700 BCE]: all the items listed in its texts were already in place, such as Solomon's first temple [850 BCE]; the war between the Israelites and Canaanites which resulted in a sovereign kingdom called Israel [later Judea] and the war with Egypt as stated in a 3,500 year Stelle. The point is which ever date one selects, there is nothing whatsoever anywhere else for centuries after the Hebrew bible appeared in its advanced alphabetical form.Was Nimrod the first recorded 'KING'? Did a city called Pithom and Goshen exist 3,500 years ago and its relics discovered recently? Was their a nation of the Medianites embedded in the desert of what is now Saudi Arabia 3,500 years ago? How do we know of such information - book of the dead? When was medicine seperated from occultism?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

First, define "life form grouping seperations in their correct protocol". That's word salad.

---

Word salad: life began in water [correct protocol]; next came air-born winged life [correct protocol]; humans are the last grouping [correct protocol]; all transit life forms are aso listed in the correct protocol, including virus and bacteria which cannot be seen by the naked eye. Where's the Egyptian writings? You have run far from the point of debate here, jimping to minutae deflections instead - where is your Egyptian writings proof?

quote:

---

Second, a hand impression is a signature

---

No, its not. Nor is a thumb impression prevalent in ancient Egypt 4000 years ago. There should be 1000's of transit imprints since 30,000 years seen every 5000 years: names; nations; monuments; wars; historically identifiable marks; books; kings; etc. The proof of the dead sea scrolls is not its C14 verification, but the listing of historically evidential contemporanous names and events, etc. C14 is easilly doctored; contemporary names and events provable of an ancient period are not. Saying there was a temple 2850 years ago via C14 is not proof - finding a relic of a coin, or a part of a temple monument, or a name of a historical king or war proven via cross reference writings, maintained via periodical thread of evidences is proof: you have not got such proof - why is that? For this reasoning we know that aboriginals in Australia are not 60,000 years old: it is the caves, not the cave markings, which reflect that conclusion. Check some population figures and the vacuum of graduated imprints not seen for 60K years! There are no UFO's in area 51 either.

quote:

---

Third, they ARE a monument in and of themselves

---

Caves?

quote:

---

Are you claiming that they were faked?

---

Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.

quote:

---

So, the Hebrew bible is different than the book of the dead because the Hebrew Bible uses alphabetics instead of heiroglyphs. And it's different than cuniform tablets because it's written on goat skin instead of impressed into clay.

---

Yes, of course. Why are there no alphabetical books - volumes of them, as one would normally expect? It is different also for a host of other reasons not seen before or for some 800 years later.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the books of the Bible are not poetic?

---

It is sublimely poetic prose and grammatically perfect, however it is the historical factors contained in those writings - and the total absence of head butting dieties which seperate these writings. The advanced alphabetical hebrew books are of course greater than all the writings seen before. Rocket science applies.

quote:

---

As far as "no bearing", that's debatable. It's the source of the 10 commandments.

---

No sir. Its dfferent in kind and degree. One of them nixes image worship and divine kings and professes monotheism of a form never seen anywhere else till today.

quote:

---

Further, it predates Genesis and mentions the idea of Death making it "the first scientific recording of the concept to death" thus proving that Genesis is not the first scientific recording.

---

No sir. Taking one's earthly belongings to the grave in a monument which costed 1000's of lives for a divine king is hardly an understanding of death; 24 hour burial is a more scientific premise.

quote:

---

When was medicine seperated from occultism?

​

With the development of the scientific method.

---

Think treatment, ID, quarantine, burning and seperation of 'infected' and 'contagious' belongs of leprosy, instead of deeming deseases as curses of the gods. The multi-page descriptions reads like a medicine treatise of today - check it out some time. The washing of hands to elimate 90% of germs also comes from the same source.

quote:

---

There is a world of life between "life in water" and "air-born winged life".
Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.

---

Correct. Life forms which creep, where the waters swarm - these precede the winged creatures; and 'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye. We also see that the transit point of life from the oceans to land is in creepings of life forms which extended out between the waters and land [namely 'wherewith']:

quote:

---

1/21. the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind

---

quote:

---

Sure it is. If I am an artist and I decide to make a handprint on my art to signify that it is my art, then that is my signature.

---

Sure. But if you are already an artist, it infers such artistry is already an established vocation - it means you were not the first artist which popped from nowhere 30, 000 years ago, with the next artist emerging only recenty!

quote:

---

You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.

---

A coin which mentions the temple and the year and name of the king, in alphabetical hebrew to boot. Not to mention that temple was destroyed by Babylon 600 BCE. This transcends any C14 dating and alledged 30K year paintings.

quote:

---

Caves?

​

The art within the cave.

​

Absolutely. For all the above reasons you have avoided.

​

You haven't provided any reasons. You have said that a coin is evidence of a temple.

---

Do you not see any difference between a C14 dating made with the total lack of proof seen with a coin!?

quote:

---

Jewish monotheism is based on the Egyptian cult of Akhenaten and Ra worship.

---

Its based on the total reversal of Ra and a sun deity referred to as monotheism. Ask the nations of Arabia and Europe why they don't worship Ra and the sun instead. Your not talking science but as a fundamentalist who cannot be touched of his beliefs.

quote:

---

Do you actually know anything about C14 dating?

---

Yes. And I gave clear and credible reasonings why it is insufficient w/o on the ground backing. It is reasonable, in fact incumbent, to expect follow-up with on the ground backing of an alledged 30K year artist whose great works are seen on a cave in France. Specially so when Ghoul [France] is a relatively new country in the ancient realm.

quote:

---

Further, humans are not the last thing to evolve. There have been plenty of life forms since man came around.

---

Life forms and life form groups [kinds; species] are two different things: a life form, as in a new form of virus is not a specie but one that follows a prevailing specie. Genesis is vindicated as the first recording in declaring humans as the last specie as well as the dominant one. It is aso the first recording of species of life forms in its correct protocol.