(08-01-2024 08:26 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

Evolution as taught in modern science is absolutely incompatible with the God of the Bible. Even if you do some seriously selective cherry picking on evolution to try and shoehorn it in there you are still left with some totally incompatible key points Biblically.

Now if you throw the Bible out and just kinda make up our own view and version of God then yes, that is absolutely compatible with modern evolution as its taught. I could absolutely see that if that is a persons perspective on God.

So it would really come down to who your God is and what is the basis for belief in that God.

In your opinion....

(08-01-2024 09:10 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:26 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

Evolution as taught in modern science is absolutely incompatible with the God of the Bible. Even if you do some seriously selective cherry picking on evolution to try and shoehorn it in there you are still left with some totally incompatible key points Biblically.

Now if you throw the Bible out and just kinda make up our own view and version of God then yes, that is absolutely compatible with modern evolution as its taught. I could absolutely see that if that is a persons perspective on God.

So it would really come down to who your God is and what is the basis for belief in that God.

In your opinion....

Exactly. Eric's Biblical interpretations.

(08-01-2024 09:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 09:10 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:26 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

Evolution as taught in modern science is absolutely incompatible with the God of the Bible. Even if you do some seriously selective cherry picking on evolution to try and shoehorn it in there you are still left with some totally incompatible key points Biblically.

Now if you throw the Bible out and just kinda make up our own view and version of God then yes, that is absolutely compatible with modern evolution as its taught. I could absolutely see that if that is a persons perspective on God.

So it would really come down to who your God is and what is the basis for belief in that God.

In your opinion....

Exactly. Eric's Biblical interpretations.

That's actually the whole point here, I wouldn't have to interpret it, I would just have to quote it. My position actually matches up with the words of the text

To hold the opposite view is what would force you to reinterpret and change the words from what they actually say.

(08-01-2024 09:31 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 09:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 09:10 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:26 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

Evolution as taught in modern science is absolutely incompatible with the God of the Bible. Even if you do some seriously selective cherry picking on evolution to try and shoehorn it in there you are still left with some totally incompatible key points Biblically.

Now if you throw the Bible out and just kinda make up our own view and version of God then yes, that is absolutely compatible with modern evolution as its taught. I could absolutely see that if that is a persons perspective on God.

So it would really come down to who your God is and what is the basis for belief in that God.

In your opinion....

Exactly. Eric's Biblical interpretations.

That's actually the whole point here, I wouldn't have to interpret it, I would just have to quote it. My position actually matches up with the words of the text

To hold the opposite view is what would force you to reinterpret and change the words from what they actually say.

I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate. But you don't have to change a word if you view Genesis as a parable, just as Jesus often spoke in parables. I've never thought of the Bible as a step by step recipe book. Its far more and far deeper than that.

(08-01-2024 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  I'm not going to turn this into a religious debate. But you don't have to change a word if you view Genesis as a parable, just as Jesus often spoke in parables. I've never thought of the Bible as a step by step recipe book. Its far more and far deeper than that.

Bullet that is demonstrably false, even if you say its a parable you have to RADICALLY change the words to make it work. Even if you turn the entire text into a parable its so specific and detailed that it then turns God and Jesus into the biggest liars who ever lived, because it spectacularly contradicts it even in parable form.

And its not like you have a textual based reason to say its a parable, you are just saying "I need this to be a parable for my view to work, therefore its a parable".


1- Just from a strictly textual examination its written as a historical narrative, not a parable. Its gives exact genealogies and counts of days and years, names specific places, specific people, specific events etc. THAT IS NOT A PARABLE. And those genealogies, peoples, places and events are repeated throughout the whole Bible as being 100% literal and never once presented as parable or metaphor. This is a pure historical narrative and the textual opposite of a Biblical parable.

2- Jesus and all the Apostles taught it as a literal historical account, not a parable. And its not just Jesus and the NT, there is not one single place in the entire Bible that even remotely suggests its a parable. From Genesis to Revelation its always referenced as a LITERAL account.

(07-31-2024 08:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:49 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:45 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:16 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  I get that your just trying to be a trolling prick but lets be honest about the topic.

You don't have to believe in the Bible at all to know how shaky the science is on stuff like this.

Its unproven hypothesis stacked on unproven hypothesis stacked unproven hypothesis, and they get enough scientists to agree with that stack of assumptions and suddenly its presented as settled science.

Its a stack of hypothetical models they have all agreed to accept as scientific fact for the moment. Much like "climate science".

Its extremely shaky and if were being honest we should be able to admit that.

The study of human evolution is very shaky and basically pseudoscience in your eyes. Yet the quote below is iron clad and not to be questioned???

Quote:The Bible also tells us man used to live to be over 900 years old, and a 900 year old mans bones would look very much like a neanderthal. The forehead and certain other bones would continue to grow and change and they would grow more and more hair on the back and nearly resemble a hunched over animal at the end.

Point out the post where I said its "Ironclad" and "not to be questioned".

I obviously said no such thing.

True, you didn't say the statement was iron clad. But you imply it is. Your argumentation is basically Clintonesque. You are intentionally vague on some subject matters - like this - to intentionally give yourself wiggle room to weasel your way out of a speculative at best opinion to avoid the labels "wrong" and "incorect".

More BS from someone I wouldn't expect it from. Eric simply related what the Bible actually says on the subject, he never stated that he prescribed to it. And even if he does why the almost visceral reaction from you guys? Do you hear him trying to humiliate you for something you believe in?

Some of you guys here are starting to act like democrats. It's puzzling.

There are many things we (they, the scientists) don’t know. Claiming anything science says is iron clad is just as dangerous as dismissing what the Bible says. For instance the Big Bang theory. It certainly appears it has been proven to be total conjecture by the JWT. Yet some scientists still keep trying to explain why they are not wrong. The speed of light can’t be broken? Well now it certainly can somehow. The scientists are still trying to explain why they aren’t wrong.
I don’t know how old the earth is. But there certainly are mysteries that point to it being younger than we are told.

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

So Eric, you believe Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.

Goodness gracious. Those texts have been written and rewritten by those in power from time to time and translated and mistranslated and interpreted and misinterpreted since Noah wore short pants (way before he lived to be like 950...lot of candles on that cake). Wonder how he'd feel about possibly being mistaken for a Neanderthal?

(08-01-2024 10:55 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  So Eric, you believe Methuselah lived to be 969 years old.

Goodness gracious. Those texts have been written and rewritten by those in power from time to time and translated and mistranslated and interpreted and misinterpreted since Noah wore short pants (way before he lived to be like 950...lot of candles on that cake). Wonder how he'd feel about possibly being mistaken for a Neanderthal?

That is factually dead wrong.

We have thousands of copies of the Old Testament over 2300 years old still in the original Hebrew and have thousands of copies of the NT in the original Greek.

You can pull up on your phone right now interlinear Bible tools that show the Hebrew and Greek from the 2000+ year old manuscripts and compare it word by word, line by line with the modern KJV and see the words and books have not changed.

Is it possible that "genetic scientists" need to find information that would show the value of what they do? Are their "conclusions" slanted to show others that their work is valuable, thus garnering more financial support for their "research"?

(08-01-2024 11:27 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  Is it possible that "genetic scientists" need to find information that would show the value of what they do? Are their "conclusions" slanted to show others that their work is valuable, thus garnering more financial support for their "research"?

Welcome to the world of grant-funded research.

(08-01-2024 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

You have Scottish ancestors? We have similarities.

Haplo type is a fascinating area of science. We are all mutts.

For example, seems a group of folks who were taller than the existing residents and who were herdsmen from the Central Asia grassland steppes called the Yamnaya rolled into Northern Europe starting 5,000 years ago. Those folks added their genes to the stew. The genetic protections they had to sheep related illnesses also passed along the markers for the autoimmune disease of MS to people with Northern European ancestry.

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

The genius who says I'm mindless makes maybe the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

Please say that in the Joe Biden grouchy old geezer yelling voice. That would be appropriate.

(08-01-2024 12:04 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

You have Scottish ancestors? We have similarities.

Haplo type is a fascinating area of science. We are all mutts.

For example, seems a group of folks who were taller than the existing residents and who were herdsmen from the Central Asia grassland steppes called the Yamnaya rolled into Northern Europe starting 5,000 years ago. Those folks added their genes to the stew. The genetic protections they had to sheep related illnesses also passed along the markers for the autoimmune disease of MS to people with Northern European ancestry.

78% Northern Ireland and Central Scottish Lowlands, the balance is mostly French Huguenot. I've traced family back to Edinburgh. My aunt has been to visit. Ireland and Scotland are definitely on my travel list when my kids are old enough to appreciate it.

Interesting that you bring up MS. Doctors were concerned when I was born, which would have been incredibly rare for a baby back then. Luckily I've made it to my mid 40s without any significant issues, though I suspect that may be coming to an end as I have most of the common symptoms.

(08-01-2024 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

There weren't many events of intermingling. I've forgotten the number they theorized happened 50,000 years ago, but it was some very small amount. Maybe 50. Maybe 10. Its just that those genes were very beneficial and multiplied. They ones that were neutral or not beneficial gradually got lost as there was more mingling with humans in Africa who had no Neanderthal genetic material.

Did y'all hear the report this week, where "climate scientists" said that 2023 was the hottest year (globally) in 125,000 years? And, that July 22nd was the hottest day (globally) in the past 125,000 years. The climate scientists were in agreement and it's all over the internet.

I mean, you can't argue with science.

(08-01-2024 12:35 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 08:07 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 05:42 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 03:41 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 08:25 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  This "age of the earth" argument is just a convenient diversion for the creation deniers. Don't really care how old the earth is and aint nobody that knows for sure anyway.

I have yet to get an intelligent answer on how the "big bang" happened. What was there before the big bang??? How do you get something... from nothing???

You're conflating evolution with theories of origin. They're not the same.

Nice hit and run.

I'd say explain yourself but I know you can't.

There are only two options:

Creation- Explains itself in detail whether you believe it or not.

Evolution - Big bang (that nobody can explain), life on earth is a complete accident, we evolved from monkeys... although there are still monkeys.

Rather mindless take.

Evolution is not inconsistent with a creator. In fact, it really makes more sense with a creator. And we didn't evolve from monkeys. They are distant cousins. You didn't evolve from your cousin, but you both have the same grandparents.

The genius who says I'm mindless makes maybe the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.

Please say that in the Joe Biden grouchy old geezer yelling voice. That would be appropriate.

I didn't say you were mindless. I said you had a mindless take, completely ignorant of evolution.
This was an even more mindless take. Having a guiding hand makes evolution fit even better. Evolution has created more and more complex organisms. Why did it have to be that way? Why did mammals thrive while dinosaurs died off instead of continuing to evolve? Evolution did not have to lead to man.

(08-01-2024 12:04 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 10:38 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(07-31-2024 07:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There were multiple unsuccessful waves of modern humans into northern Europe. There was co-mingling. Almost all of us on this board have some Neanderthal DNA. If you have Northern European ancestors, it's a given.

Gene markers from Neanderthal DNA give higher susceptibility to depression, autoimmune diseases like crohn's disease, type 2 diabetes, Dupuytren's disease, some dental disorders, etc...?

I've long loathed DNA tests, but due to some health issues several years ago I had a full genetic DNA test done that is associated with the 23 and me testing. Privacy issues aside, there's tons of interesting things in those reports. I have 83% more Neanderthal DNA than the tested population. There are a total of 3,731 genetic markers associated with Neanderthal ancestry, I have 9. Kind of wild that having just .2% of the markers puts me in the 83rd percentile. While there was certainly co-mingling, it probably wasn't as prevalent as we assume it would have been. Some of my markers include a preference for salty over sweet, resistance to mosquito bites and reaction(by far the most useful), distance runner over sprinter, heightened sense of direction, lack of fear of heights, etc.

Overall I'm 95.8% Northwestern European and .5% sub-Saharan African

You have Scottish ancestors? We have similarities.

Haplo type is a fascinating area of science. We are all mutts.

For example, seems a group of folks who were taller than the existing residents and who were herdsmen from the Central Asia grassland steppes called the Yamnaya rolled into Northern Europe starting 5,000 years ago. Those folks added their genes to the stew. The genetic protections they had to sheep related illnesses also passed along the markers for the autoimmune disease of MS to people with Northern European ancestry.

Several times Asians have pretty much replaced the population of Europe, or at least dominated the gene pool. First the Cro Magnons replaced the Neanderthals. Then farmers from the middle east. Then the milk drinking people of the steppe.

(08-01-2024 01:40 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Did y'all hear the report this week, where "climate scientists" said that 2023 was the hottest year (globally) in 125,000 years? And, that July 22nd was the hottest day (globally) in the past 125,000 years. The climate scientists were in agreement and it's all over the internet.

I mean, you can't argue with science.

Easy for them to report the "hottest year" when many, if not the majority, of the weather stations are in the middle of airports. Conveniently surrounded by tarmac.

(08-01-2024 02:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(08-01-2024 01:40 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  Did y'all hear the report this week, where "climate scientists" said that 2023 was the hottest year (globally) in 125,000 years? And, that July 22nd was the hottest day (globally) in the past 125,000 years. The climate scientists were in agreement and it's all over the internet.

I mean, you can't argue with science.

Easy for them to report the "hottest year" when many, if not the majority, of the weather stations are in the middle of airports. Conveniently surrounded by tarmac.

And when they measure ocean temperatures by putting the device near the engine of the boat. They do these things because they know they don't have real science. They are true believers, fundamentalists of the Climate Cult, and so they manipulate data to try to increase membership in the Climate Cult.