Conversation with a Pastor

Also 'thick as a short plank' meaning not too bright. This could be more Australian than British.

 

Then there is that Jethro Tull song.....THICK AS A BRICK!

AboveAlpha

 

The source does not ever say that ? Why do you make up such tall tales ?

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/babylonbaghdad.pdf

The Authors of book of Genesis drew upon multiple sources from the near east including Sumerian stories such as Enuma Elis.

I know it is difficult for your to accept that the Authors of Genesis plagiarized the various creation stories (including Enuma Elis) that existed in the near east at the time but this is what modern scholarship accepts.

It is no reason to get upset at me for informing you about what modern scholarship accepts. And what modern scholarship accepts is that Genesis was at least in part, copied from Enuma Elis. The only thing that has changed (according to Horowitz and Heiser) is that these folks think Genesis used material other than Enuma Elis more than was previously thought.

Any way you slice it or dice it, whether it was 40% Enuma Elis, 50% Ugaritic texts, and 10% modern ad lib from the authors, or some other ratio.

Genesis is a work of plagiarism.

 

This is the first time you have used the term "micro/macro" in relation to evolution. You did not even know what evolution was until I explained it to you. You were confusing evolution with abiogenesis.

You were saying silly things like this:

When I explained to that evolution was simply mutations and gave you examples = Proof you decided to introduce new terms (changing the goal posts) hoping to avoid being wrong.

Now you claim that you said "macro evolution" does not happen. This is false as this is the first time you have used the term.

Do you even know what the difference between macro and micro evolution is or do you need more schooling?

 

Ever heard of 'Professor' Stanley Unwin. He's on Google. He had his own language called Unwinese.

Methinks he's been re-incarnated and is with us today.

 

Have you come across a book called The Religion of Babylon and Assyria by Morris Jastrow.. Its free on Kindle.. I think you would find it very interesting.

 

You do realize that Darwinian evolutionary theory and macroevolution are the same thing, right? Are you sure it isn't you who needs more schooling? I'm the professor. I'll be more than happy to

I've already quoted your source multiple times. Just give up on this, man. Give up.

 

I don't know about women who might have directly contributed to starting a war, but I know this:

My brother worked for a company that manufactured turbines for nuclear-powered submarines. When business was slower than ideal, he heard the CEO's wife say that we need a war.

 

I once managed a general clothing shop. We had a stock of wet weather clothing. Someone remarked to me that
we could do with some wet weather.

 

You waste time with these people and are foolish to oppose Evolution (even if you were right about it).
Let others accept Evolution and Gen 4, and 5 as the 22 names of species from which modern man has come.

They already believe Evolution but have never even realized that scripture parallels the same story.

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, (a species!), in the day when they were created.

 

LOL

You,... on the other hand,... will not accept that Genesis lists the names of the 22 last human species while you attack this guy for repeating what you kniw is wrong.
You want science to destroy his understanding of Genesis, but you ignore mine, too, because science supports it.

YOU are just against the Bible.
Period

 

Your post was what you said to another poster. You have never used that term in our discussion. What a disingenuous attempt at misdirection.

You are just full of tricks.

Macro-evolution is just the result of many "micro evolutions" over time.

Evolution, be it an individual change (mutation) or the outcome of many changes (mutations) over time, is evolution.

Darwin's theory of natural selection (Darwinian evolution) merely states that species that experience beneficial mutations are more likely to survive and so those mutations will be selected over mutations that are not beneficial.

You have agreed that mutations happen. Now that you have been further schooled in the ideas of Darwin:

What is it about Darwin's theory that you do not agree with ?

 

Another disingenuous attempt at misdirection LOL Down, beaten, punch drunk but eager for more punishment.

Here is your silly claim:

.

And here is what the source states:

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoB...lonbaghdad.pdf

The source merely states that Genesis is not totally dependent on Enuma Elish.

The source never once states that Genesis did not plagiarize anything from Enuma Elish.

It also states that Genesis borrowed form other near eastern lore.

I know the truth is difficult for you to handle but this is no reason to make up falsehoods that you know are false.

 

What are you blubbering about now. I attack this fellow for being a disingenuous and using lame tactics.

We had a discussion about Genesis and your theories. I even partially agreed with some of them.

I am against stupidity and where parts of the Bible fit into that category, who am I to say the shoe does not fit.

This does not mean I am against the entire Bible. I like many things in the Bible.

Your problem is that you can not separate the good from the bad. This is the same problem with literalist fundamentalists.

 

You are unbelievably confused. No worries. I will school you. Have a seat in at your desk while I, The Professor, explains a few things.

1) Natural Selection is not Darwin's theory. Natural Selection works like this: if you have 3 dogs. One has a long thick fur coat. Another has a medium fur coat and another has a short thin coat. If all 3 dogs are in the desert, the dog with the shortest fur will survive while the others die off. That is Natural Selection. This happens all the time. This process is factual.

2) Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, according to Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html): The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. This has never been observed, and thus, is non-factual.

3) Microevolution can certain involve mutations, but majority of microevolution involves changes in the genome that are already present in the organism. This process HAS been observed. This is factual.

4) Macroevolution is the process of animals acquiring new information and functionality over time and, thus, creating entirely new classes of animal. This process has never been observed. This is non-factual.

 

Oh,...
My fault.

But, you have never said you agree with the idea that evolution is accounted for in the Bible if read as if the 22 names mean species.
I have assumed that you have agreed with these others who avoid discussing the factual statements found in Genesis, but hit on these other people who believe Genesis is correct for the wrong reasons.

My apologies.
Sorry.

 

ROFL - You are really desperate for punishment.

First you claim "Natural Selection is not Darwin's theory"

Then you post a link stating: The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species"

Then after making a fool of yourself by contradicting your own claim, you say this after your quote (above) from YOUR link.

I went to the link hoping to find evidence for your "this has never been observed claim" since you give no support for this claim.

Instead of your link substantiating your claim, it goes on to refute your claim in the next sentence !

Priceless !!

 

My link wasn't given to assert my defiance to macroevolution. It was given to define it.

Yes, natural selection is part of Darwin's theory, but it isn't what his theory is about. With my attempt to simplify it for you, you've decided to go way off the deep end. So much pride in your heart that you're willing to play the fool to make a point. A useless point at that.

I rest my case.

 

That's not natural selection, that's just two dead dogs in the desert.

 

No worries Dave. I agree that the Bible contains things which have turned out to be factual. I do not agree that 22 names in Genesis mean "species" but, I do agree that the there may be information on the origin of humans in Genesis and the near east lore from which Genesis was created.

I was not there so who am I to say that there is not a grain of truth in that lore. There are number of different perspectives that one can hold and none are necessarily right or wrong.

The Sumerian King lists go back over 100,000 years and have some kings living a very long time, just like the Bible has people living unusually long times.
http://www.crystalinks.com/SumerianKingList.html

The Atrahasis story has the Gods (Annunaki) (some claim what is being described is aliens that came to earth) finding the work (mining) hard and rebelling.

Obviously if these were actual "Gods" in the real sense they would not have to be doing labor to fund their existence.

They decide to construct a worker. That worker is made from a mixture of clay (Earth- Earthling) and the blood of the Gods. Some say this is a primitive description of genetic engineering mixing early hominids with Annunaki

In any case, the resulting beings are called "Adamu".

One can fine myriads of information on these and other Sumerians stories and a with it an even bigger pot of speculation.

This is one perspective of the origin of the Genesis story of man being created "in our image" and being called Adam.

 

First you claim "Natural Selection is not Darwin's theory"

Then you post a link stating: The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species"

Now you claim "Yes, natural selection is part of Darwin's theory" and in the next sentence say ... but it isn't what his theory is about... with no explanation in relation to what you think Darwin's theory is about.

And then you call me a fool.

Forgive me for laughing but, if on the other side you would be laughing too.

 

Is he still going on? LOL!!!

Complete waste of time.

I once knew this Battlefield Preacher....I can't remember what denomination he was but he was a Christian.

He had seen a LOT and had been in Iraq twice.

We talked one day and I listened to him and he listened to me and there really was nothing we disagreed upon.

Reason?

BECAUSE WE HAD RESPECT FOR EACH OTHERS BELIEFS!!!

He was not ignorant of things and in fact he read everything he could about different faiths and Atheists and Agnostics but one thing we absolutely agreed upon was that ther were some simple realities in the world such as Evolution and the Universe and we agreed that these things did not conflict with a persons FAITH!!

Science and Religion do not conflict because they cannot as they are Apples and Oranges!!

AboveAlpha

 

The Hydroplate theory explains how the earth was destroyed by a flood followed by torrential rains. So, would his theory be about water? Of course not. Water is part of the theory, it is not what the theory is about. The theory is about an event. Darwin's theory incorporates natural selection, but it isn't about natural selection. It's about animals evolving into other kinds of animals. This is a pretty easy concept to understand, but whatever. Believe what you wish.

LOL. I'm speechless.

 

Yes, it's about animals evolving... via natural selection. Do you even know what the complete title of Darwin's work was?

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

So, yeah, Qchan, it was about natural selection. The fact that you're trying to play this off in your favor instead of just admitting that you were wrong is exactly why you're not looked favorably upon by many posters here.

 

I told you to believe whatever you want to believe. You think that Darwin's Evolutionary Theory is natural selection. You think they are the same thing. I find that rather humorous. So, please continue. Go on with the rant you have stored up about how you've won and how I'm wrong. Show the world how you're smarter than me. Do all of that while I laugh at all of the ignorance you're displaying. So, yes. Please continue.