Conquer Club

Posted: **Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:11 pm**

Do viceroy and lionz have similar unorthodox theories in the field of neuroscience? Cellular biology? Quantum physics? Anything else?

If not, why did they pick this one as thee only one to take such radical stances?

Posted: **Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:56 pm**

GreecePwns wrote:Do viceroy and lionz have similar unorthodox theories in the field of neuroscience? Cellular biology? Quantum physics? Anything else?

If not, why did they pick this one as thee only one to take such radical stances?

People who take the (very radical) Judeo-Christian position that the Bible is to be considered literal truth rather than parable need to attack anything that disagrees with it. The Bible has no opinion on neuroscience or quantum physics, and therefore those disciplines are not under attack. The Bible does have an opinion on the origin of life, and therefore the scientific version of the origin of life is under attack.

Ironically, the radicals are standing on a very weak and wobbly platform when they try to build a case for a literal Bible through creation. Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology agree that Genesis clearly shows itself under critical analysis as patchwork quilt of divergent religious teachings that were only later spliced together into a single book.

Nothing reveals the flimsiness of this patchwork as well as the creation story itself. The first version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 1 through 2:4, is clearly inconsistent with the second version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 2:5 through 3:24.

In the first version of the creation story, plants and trees were created on the third day (Genesis 1:11 to 1:13) creatures of the water and air were created on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20 to 1:23) while land animals and Man were not created until the sixth day (Genesis 1:24 to 1:31). In the second version, days are not specified, but the sequence is herbaceous plants (NOT trees!) first (Genesis 2:5) Man second (Genesis 2:7) trees third (Genesis 2:8 to 2:9) land animals and birds last (Genesis 2:19). This cannot be explained away; either the Bible is to be taken literally or it is not, and if it is then the first sequence (herbaceous plants, trees, water creatures, air creatures, land creatures, man) is clearly in conflict with the second sequence (herbaceous plants, man, trees, land creatures, air creatures.)

In the first creation story, Man and Woman were created simultaneously and are implicitly equal. ("in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.") Even the original Hebrew text uses purely gender-neutral language through the first creation story, demonstrating its origins in a sexually egalitarian branch of Judaism. In the second story, Adam is busy for a long time (Genesis 2:15 to 2:19) before it is decided that he needs a woman. (Genesis 2:20 "And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.") Even the wording is insultingly sexist; the woman is created only after it turns out that cattle are inadequate at satisfying Adam's needs. Adam is formed directly from the Earth, but his wife is formed from his rib, clearly indicating her subordinate status. Furthermore, while Adam has a name from the moment of his creation, the woman is not named Eve until after getting thrown out of Eden. Before that she has to be content with her status as somewhat superior to cattle. Clearly the second creation story originates from a male-supremacist priestly tradition very, very different from the gender-neutral first story.

Posted: **Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:49 pm**

Welcome to the thread, duke.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:31 am**

Dukasaur wrote:People who take the (very radical) Judeo-Christian position that the Bible is to be considered literal truth rather than parable need to attack anything that disagrees with it. The Bible has no opinion on neuroscience or quantum physics, and therefore those disciplines are not under attack. The Bible does have an opinion on the origin of life, and therefore the scientific version of the origin of life is under attack.

"The scientific version???" To what are you referring to Duke?

This thread is to prove scientifically that the theory of evolution has no foundation and is in fact fabricated by scientist with false evidence to make people think that it is a real truth when in fact it is still only and just a theory. All the evidence is posted all along this thread starting from the Original post.

Dukasaur wrote:Ironically, the radicals are standing on a very weak and wobbly platform when they try to build a case for a literal Bible through creation. Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology agree that Genesis clearly shows itself under critical analysis as patchwork quilt of divergent religious teachings that were only later spliced together into a single book.

Most (mainstream, non-radical) scholars of theology would say that because it is an attack on the truth where as a lie like the theory of evolution is advanced. But they never agree even in their attacks. It is not the bible that attacks science, it is the other way around.

It was only about 40 or 50 years ago when scientist first realized that the universe did in fact have a beginning. Before then it was thought to be an eternal Universe demonstrating the eternal aspects of the nature of God. There was no way to confirm or deny, either way, that the universe had a beginning. Who would have thought that? Who could have imagined it?

But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

Dukasaur wrote:Nothing reveals the flimsiness of this patchwork as well as the creation story itself. The first version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 1 through 2:4, is clearly inconsistent with the second version of the creation story, as told in Genesis 2:5 through 3:24.

Time and again it is proven that there is no inconsistency to the Bible record. Only that humans misunderstand because they simply don't want to know the truth. People would much rather listen to lies. All apparent Bible discrepancies can be explained but not here. That sounds like you have the makings of another thread.

One of the reasons why I wrote this article is to stay focused on the issue. So I am pointing out the obvious lies that are presented as truth in the theory of evolution. Unlike the other threads that start one way and end up talking about something else?

But please do start a thread on those apparent inconsistencies of the Bible. And let me know when you have started it, so that I may visit. But on this thread the only real issue are the false and fabricated evidence that are used to support a theory that has no proof and no foundation to it, AT ALL!!!

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
-2Timothy 4:3-4

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:54 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
-2Timothy 4:3-4

Ah, the books of Timothy: my favourite. They're the ones that I use to keep all the women in line.

"Let a woman learn in silence with full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence."-1 Timothy 2:11,12

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:57 am**

I think you may have something there Timminz. Maybe Viceroy and Lionz' science teacher was a woman, so they biblically decreed to themselves they should not listen to anything she said.

(more likely their science teachers were either inept and didn't encourage independent critical thinking or the creationist brainwashing had already got to them by that point)

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:40 am**

crispybits wrote:I think you may have something there Timminz. Maybe Viceroy and Lionz' science teacher was a woman, so they biblically decreed to themselves they should not listen to anything she said.

(more likely their science teachers were either inept and didn't encourage independent critical thinking or the creationist brainwashing had already got to them by that point)

You make an interesting point. I was thinking it was more of a mommy issue. How can a child respect and obey their mother when they're taught to let no woman exercise authority over them?

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:52 am**

Viceroy, are you afraid of responding to all posted evidence? Do you understand that the whole forum looks at you as a giant joke by continuing with your stupidities and continually dodging everything? Stop posting useless long responses to semi related stuff and answer to all the points that have been made.
Ps: anything comming from the bible is not evidence. Otherwise my book about humpa loompas will be quoted in this thread and i will expect people to take it as evidence!

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:07 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

Actually, no and no. But let's look at the actual text, according to the The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE).

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth"

[1:1–2:3] This section, from the Priestly source, functions as an introduction, as ancient stories of the origin of the world (cosmogonies) often did. It introduces the primordial story (2:4–11:26), the stories of the ancestors (11:27–50:26), and indeed the whole Pentateuch. The chapter highlights the goodness of creation and the divine desire that human beings share in that goodness. God brings an orderly universe out of primordial chaos merely by uttering a word. In the literary structure of six days, the creation events in the first three days are related to those in the second three.

Code: Select all
1. light (day)/darkness (night) = 4. sun/moon 2. arrangement of water = 5. fish + birds from waters 3. a) dry land = 6. a) animals b) vegetation b) human beings: male/female

The seventh day, on which God rests, the climax of the account, falls outside the six-day structure.
Until modern times the first line was always translated, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Several comparable ancient cosmogonies, discovered in recent times, have a “when…then” construction, confirming the translation “when…then” here as well. “When” introduces the pre-creation state and “then” introduces the creative act affecting that state. The traditional translation, “In the beginning,” does not reflect the Hebrew syntax of the clause.

Now, it's true that Biblical footnotes (especially good Catholic Bibles) tend to be wordy, but notice that your assertion that no other religious work would have such a statement is flat out false; it was common among creation stories at the time. What is not common among those stories that typically involved conflict and wars between gods to create what the people saw around them was the methodical formation of the universe merely by the word of God.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:26 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
-2Timothy 4:3-4

For someone proclaiming truth, you have a funny way of ignoring it. Saying "everyone else is lying...and I don't even have to prove it because its so obvious anyone with sense would see that". Is not scientific or even intelligent discourse. Its childish idiocy. Its DEFINITELY not Christianity!

You believe flat out proven lies and then proclaim you are "telling the truth".
You are not even a true Creationist, you are just a flat out liar.. and unless you bother to actually answer real and true criticism, explain why your ONLY criteria for ""valid" versus "invalid" data is just that the invalid data is anything not agreeing with your current ideas, you are also a troll.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:41 am**

tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

Actually, no and no. But let's look at the actual text, according to the The New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE).

"In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth"

Now, it's true that Biblical footnotes (especially good Catholic Bibles) tend to be wordy, but notice that your assertion that no other religious work would have such a statement is flat out false; it was common among creation stories at the time. What is not common among those stories that typically involved conflict and wars between gods to create what the people saw around them was the methodical formation of the universe merely by the word of God.

Why don't we just keep this simple man??? Just show me another religious book or writing that indicates that our universe had a beginning? That's all.

See, you say that the above statement is false and then you dodge by going into some grey area that has absolutely nothing to do with the statement. That is the same thing that evolutionary scientist do when trying to explain evolution....

"Duh, Well no, there presently is no real fossil evidence at this time to support the claim that the theory of evolution is real and we are just making shit up as we go along, but hey look, germs and microbes change into other germs and microbes so that could be taken as evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds and man from some common ape like creature??? Duh."
-Evolutionary Scientist

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:13 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:Why don't we just keep this simple man??? Just show me another religious book or writing that indicates that our universe had a beginning? That's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology#Cosmogony_and_cosmology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony

The most widely accepted version at the time, although a philosophical account of the beginning of things, is reported by Hesiod, in his Theogony. He begins with Chaos, a yawning nothingness. Out of the void emerged Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.[24]

First there's nothing, then there's stuff.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 11:16 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:
Why don't we just keep this simple man??? Just show me another religious book or writing that indicates that our universe had a beginning? That's all.

All of them do. They provide different answers, but essentially every religious text has some kind of answer. Some are even remarkably similar to the Bible's view.

Viceroy63 wrote:

"Duh, Well no, there presently is no real fossil evidence at this time to support the claim that the theory of evolution is real and we are just making shit up as we go along, but hey look, germs and microbes change into other germs and microbes so that could be taken as evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds and man from some common ape like creature??? Duh."
-Evolutionary Scientist

No, more like.. here is the evidence... review it for yourself. We have posted links to various sources, pieces of information, but you continue to ignore them.

You also ignored my Biblically based explanations, ctiticisms of YOUR views.

That's why you are a troll ..

OH, yeah... even your supposedly honest poll has no real options regarding evolution. Evolution is based not on lies, but upon evidence. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away, doesn't make it false, it just makes you ignorant.. or worse, an active deciever.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 12:34 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:But some 3,000 years ago It was revealed that the Universe did have a beginning. Who could make up something like this? In no other religious book or religious writings do you see such a bold statement as...

"IN THE BEGINNING..."

Those three words alone strongly state the fact that there was a beginning to everything; That this universe did in fact begin. And this statement was only made in the Bible and 3,000 years before it could be known as truth.

I see "ONCE UPON A TIME" used in books a lot too.

I don't think it proves the story was real though. :roll:

Also, The story that begins "A LONG TIME AGO, IN A GALAXY FAR AWAY", seems to disprove your 6000 year hypothesis.

Please do your research before posting. It makes you look like a liar. :lol:

Also, you forgot the option: Stupid idiots will never understand science.

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:00 pm**

Posted: **Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:15 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:Why don't we just keep this simple man??? Just show me another religious book or writing that indicates that our universe had a beginning? That's all.

You know, you really are easy. Too easy. So easy I wonder why I spend my time with Google. I'm horrid with Google. It took me one try. Here is the basis for the Genesis story, the creation myth of Babylon. The Enuma Elish.

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:26 am**

Nice try tzor, but there is no reference to a beginning in that account you posted. Only a fixed point in time with an indication of a prior history. That's not the same thing that I ask for. Perhaps you are too easy?

"IN THE BEGINNING..." is a definite statement of the facts. It was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.

"IN THE BEGINNING, God Created the Heaven and the earth!"

Simple, to the point and revealed knowledge that could not be proven at the time but it is now. However evolution taking millions of years to happen sounds more like a fairy tale, that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Especially when there is no fossil evidence in support of the theory.

The theory of evolution is supported by lies like the Horse exhibit that is proven to be fabricated and every other exhibit that is used in support of this theory and have all been proven false as is demonstrated in this thread in the original post and throughout. All anyone has to do is read the OP. I even added links to other sources. And I am the one who is not providing evidence???? Hardly.

Not that you brought that up but others did and I wanted to mention it in this one comment post.

BTW: Do you notice a contradiction here...

"None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven..."

Who formed those gods if none of them had been brought into being?

That's one hell of a complicated statement of the facts.

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:56 am**

how is this thread still alive?

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:31 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:Who formed those gods if none of them had been brought into being?

That's one hell of a complicated statement of the facts.

I could ask the same about yours. How could it be the beginning if something (God) already existed, and who formed him?

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:39 am**

crispybits wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Who formed those gods if none of them had been brought into being?

That's one hell of a complicated statement of the facts.

I could ask the same about yours. How could it be the beginning if something (God) already existed, and who formed him?

He's the first cause,the uncaused cause,existing eternally outside of time and space...duh

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:42 am**

Yep - or in fallacy definition terms he is the exception that is begged :wink:

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:13 am**

Army of GOD wrote:how am I still alive?

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:28 am**

Viceroy63 wrote:"IN THE BEGINNING..." is a definite statement of the facts. It was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.

"IN THE BEGINNING" is a direct mis-translation of the Biblical Hebrew.

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:36 pm**

crispybits wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Who formed those gods if none of them had been brought into being?

That's one hell of a complicated statement of the facts.

I could ask the same about yours. How could it be the beginning if something (God) already existed, and who formed him?

Crispy; Read the comment dude? That religious account is claiming that gods are formed. "Before any god came into being..." Read it again will ya? Also don't be confused. God does not exist within our confines. We exist within His. If there was no time we would cease to exist but God would not. He exist outside of time and space so is not effected by His own creation.

tzor wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:Why don't we just keep this simple man??? Just show me another religious book or writing that indicates that our universe had a beginning? That's all.

You know, you really are easy. Too easy. So easy I wonder why I spend my time with Google. I'm horrid with Google. It took me one try. Here is the basis for the Genesis story, the creation myth of Babylon. The Enuma Elish.

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--
Then it was that the gods were formed in the midst of heaven.
Lahmu and Lahamu were brought forth, by name they were called.

The Bible makes no claim that God ever came into being but that God is eternal and outside of creation and not bounded by it. Yet this religious writ claims that the gods were created and yet logically it is a god that does the creating. It's like the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

Evolution in it's general meaning and principle proposes that life came from lifelessness. That from nothing came something. Think about it. Science acknowledges that before the "Big Bang" there was nothing. And then, somehow, it all just, exploded??? I might add, huh????????

Come on; Who is really talking fiction here. The Bible clearly states that There is a Beginning and that He is the Beginner of it all. There was nothing and then God made it all. It did not just happen and evolved from nothing from just some Big Bang alone. Any mathematician can tell you that no matter how much you multiply "0" the answer will always be "0". But God changes that equation. God is the only constant in the universe and outside of it.

And anyone who thinks that "IN THE BEGINNING..." is a mistranslation from the original Hebrew text should supply a reference to that statement. I simply dare ya!

Posted: **Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:21 pm**

Viceroy63 wrote:Any mathematician can tell you that no matter how much you multiply "0" the answer will always be "0".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminate_form

Conquer Club

An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

Re: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.