The scientist who enjoys debating creationists

[GMDino]

(08-02-2015, 01:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Plants first


Animals first. He simply brought them to Adam to be named.

So again Yes.

See above for how numbers work.  Then read the verse before 8. (Hint: its 7) and see when man was created.  (Hint 2: It was before the plants.)

That's not even good trolling.  Its just saying "Nuh uh." and ignoring what was right there in the quote.

You can just cut a whole sentence out to make your point...but that just makes you wrong:

Quote:18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to live alone. I will make a suitable companion to help him.” 19 So he took some soil from the ground and formed all the animals and all the birds. Then he brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

[Rotobeast]

(08-02-2015, 01:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: Luckily I have a couple hours to waste today.



This is the second verse.  It establishes that the Earth was completely covered with water...and total darkness. 

Total darkness means there was no light.  (For now we can ignore that the water would be frozen solid and not "raging" with no light.)





This is the THIRD verse.  It FOLLOWS the second.  It establishes that because the Earth was in "total darkness" God created light.

Earth in darkness...verse 2.
Light created...verse 3.

2 and then 3.

Earth and then light.

2 and then 3.

Then LATER God created the Sun and moon and stars.

This will be your one and only lesson in how numbers work. 

Perhaps God's first light was on a scale of you at a concert with a Bic lighter ?
He just decided to expand upon it later.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 01:28 PM)GMDino Wrote: See above for how numbers work.  Then read the verse before 8. (Hint: its 7) and see when man was created.  (Hint 2: It was before the plants.)

That's not even good trolling.  Its just saying "Nuh uh." and ignoring what was right there in the quote.

You can just cut a whole sentence out to make your point...but that just makes you wrong:

These are the verses (NIV) with nothing omitted:

Quote:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

He states he will make man a helper. He had already made the animals (see word had). He brought the animals to Adam to be his helper.

The fact that you have to nitpick so much to find discrepancy kinda proves my point. The theory of evolution pretty much follows the story of creation in the bible.

How did that happen; luck?

With that said: I'm done (you really need to address your propensity to make everything a personal attack). The words are there for anyone with an open mind to read.

[GMDino]

(08-02-2015, 01:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These are the verses (NIV) with nothing omitted:


He states he will make man a helper. He had already made the animals (see word had). He brought the animals to Adam to be his helper.

The fact that you have to nitpick so much to find discrepancy kinda proves my point. The theory of evolution pretty much follows the story of creation in the bible.

How did that happen; luck?

With that said: I'm done (you really need to address your propensity to make everything a personal attack). The words are there for anyone with an open mind to read.

Oh my sides!  Larry accused ME of nitpicking!

Ok...I post an exact quote from BOTH creation stories and you can't read one so you jump on the other and STILL can't admit you were wrong but you "are done".

If you think my instructing you how to read things in order and how numbers work is a "personal attack" you might want to stop trolling.  You don't seem to have the skin for it.  (Hint: that's an observation...not an attack.)

Here's some reading for you since you are done with this thread and now have time:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm

Quote:The writer believed that his story would not be complete without an explanation of how things--the sun, the earth, the seas—and life--plants, animals, and humans--came to be.  For good measure, the writer decided to include two such explanations.  He did so even though the two stories contradicted each other on several points. 

The priest opened his history with a creation story that might be his own, or one of his priestly contemporaries. The Creator in this story is impersonal, almost force-like.  The pre-creation setting is a watery chaos.  Creation takes place over six days.  He begins by creating the heaven and the earth.  Light comes next, followed by land rising from amidst the “gathered together” waters.  The creation of living things occupies parts of the next three days.  “Grass,” “fruit trees,” and “herbs” are created on the third day. Curiously, the sun, moon, and stars come into existence the day after the plant kingdom is created.  On the fifth day, God brings forth fish, “great whales,” and “every winged fowl.”  Finally, on the sixth day, God creates “cattle, and creeping thing, and beasts of the earth.”  The creation story culminates with God bringing into existence his crowning creation: man made “in the image of God.”  Man, the priest explains, is “to have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over the earth, and over every thing that creepeth upon the earth.” 

Immediately after the first creation account, the priest inserted a second story, a version of the ancient tale that was first told centuries earlier around desert campfires. The deity in this second story is a personal god with human-like emotions, the Lord of the Plantation.  The story opens on a barren landscape on which “no shrub of the field had yet appeared”.  God had not yet “caused it to rain upon the earth.” Creation begins in the form “a mist from the earth” that waters the parched plain.  God then forms from “the dust of the earth” the first man, Adam, and breathes “into his nostrils the breath of life.”  Finding a suitable home for Adam is God’s next concern. (This God takes a paternalistic interest in the first human, his very special creation.) God “plants” an oasis-like garden in Eden.  Proclaiming, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him," God forms “all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.”  When none of the beasts proves to be on much comfort to Adam, God takes one of the first man’s ribs and makes the first woman, Eve.  Adam and Eve anger God by eating a forbidden fruit, but they are nonetheless permitted to have sex and reproduce.  From this first union of man and woman, the writer explained, have come all of us.

Later, of course, commentators noted that it was not possible for both creation stories to be literal history, but writing a literal history was never the priest’s goal anyway.  How could anyone not see the contradictions? Most obviously, the order of creation is different in the two stories.  In the six-day creation story, the order of creation is plants, birds and fish, mammals and reptiles, and finally man to reign over all created before him, while in the Adam and Eve story, the creation order is reversed, with man coming first, then plants and animals. The two creation stories also have different narrative rhythms, different settings, and different names for God.  In the six-day story, the creation of humanity occurs through a single act and the creator, seeming more cosmic than human-like, is present only through a series of commands.  In the Adam and Eve story, on the other hand, man and woman are created through two separate acts and God is present in a hands-on, intimate way.  The pre-creation setting in the six-day story is a watery chaos, while in the Adam and Eve version, the setting before creation is a dry dessert.  Finally, in the six-day story, the creator is called “Elohim,” while in the other version of events, the creator is “the Lord God” (“Yahweh”).

That's just for your own education...not a personal attack.  

[Beaker]

(08-02-2015, 12:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do any evolutionists find it to be more than a coincidence that the theory of evolution pretty much mirrors the steps the Bible states that god took to create the Universe?

Nothingness, void (Universe), light (Galaxy), earth, plants, solar system, sea creatures, birds, land mammals, man.

Not really because evolution has absolutely zero to do with the formation of the universe, solar system, earth and light.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 02:43 PM)Beaker Wrote: Not really because evolution has absolutely zero to do with the formation of the universe, solar system, earth and light.

Anything to do with seas creatures and fowl, then mammals, then man?

[Beaker]

(08-02-2015, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anything to do with seas creatures and fowl,  then mammals, then man?

Yes, the progression of life, but not in the order you listed.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 04:11 PM)Beaker Wrote: Yes, the progression of life, but not in the order you listed.

From my understanding of the different theories there is one that suggests we come from the sea and another that suggests we come from the trees. Which theory do you "believe" in?

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: From my understanding of the different theories there is one that suggests we come from the sea and another that suggests we come from the trees. Which theory do you "believe" in?

I, like all the people who understand this, believe both.  Life developed in the seas first, so land animals come from the sea.  But millions of years later man developed from apes that stopped living in trees.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I, like all the people who understand this, believe both.  Life developed in the seas first, so land animals come from the sea.  But millions of years later man developed from apes that stopped living in trees.

Hey, tell Beaker not me. I agree that the sea creatures were first, then land animals, and then man. Matter of fact I think I've seen it written somewhere before.

[GMDino]

(08-02-2015, 06:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hey, tell Beaker not me. I agree that the sea creatures were first, then land animals, and then man. Matter of fact I think I've seen it written somewhere before.

Maybe, but not in the Bible.

[Beaker]

(08-02-2015, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anything to do with seas creatures and fowl,  then mammals, then man?

Birds evolved after mammals.

[*bfine32*]

(08-02-2015, 10:07 PM)Beaker Wrote: Birds evolved after mammals.

That is a theory'; although one would expect wings would be hard to be hard to persevere.

You didn't answer the question posed: Did man come from the sea or the trees?

[GMDino]

(08-02-2015, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is a theory'; although one would expect wings would be hard to be hard to persevere.

You didn't answer the question posed: Did man come from the sea or the trees?

Yes.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't answer the question posed: Did man come from the sea or the trees?

I already did.  You just can't understand.

It's like asking if Margus Hunt came from Estonia or SMU.

[*bfine32*]

(08-03-2015, 12:25 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I already did.  You just can't understand.

It's like asking if Margus Hunt came from Estonia or SMU.

Yes you did. Let's now pretend I asked the sciency guy.

[GodHatesBengals]

Lawl @ people arguing with this guy.

Bottom line: it's very easy to tell who paid attention in their 10th grade biology class and who didn't.

[*Nately120*]

(08-03-2015, 01:00 AM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Lawl @ people arguing with this guy.

Bottom line: it's very easy to tell who paid attention in their 10th grade biology class and who didn't.

Pshaw, I couldn't even begin to explain what mitosis is, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start looking for a fictitious wizard to fill in the gaps.

[Beaker]

(08-02-2015, 10:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is a theory'; although one would expect wings would be hard to be hard to persevere.

You didn't answer the question posed: Did man come from the sea or the trees?

Actually, that's a fact. The earliest bird fossils go back to 150 million years ago. The earliest mammal fossils go back to 220 million years ago.

Man evolved from a primate ancestor, but all life traces back to early prokaryotic organisms. Those were present in both sea and on land.

What tangible evidence do you have that life proceeded as described in the creation myth?

[RoyleRedlegs]

(08-03-2015, 01:37 AM)Beaker Wrote: Actually, that's a fact. The earliest bird fossils go back to 150 million years ago. The earliest mammal fossils go back to 220 million years ago.

Man evolved from a primate ancestor, but all life traces back to early prokaryotic organisms. Those were present in both sea and on land.

What tangible evidence do you have that life proceeded as described in the creation myth?