Which came first? plants or animals?

[Aman777]

I will give one answer quickly for him. The lack of existence of population bottlenecks shows that the flood did not happen anytime within the last 100,000 years and probably much much longer. The sort of bottleneck that would have arisen from the Flood could last for upwards of a million years. That would put it before the time of Homo sapiens.

Dear SZ, I've seen you post this nonsense at other times, but I didn't want to hold you up as a bad example. A Bottleneck happens when many species die out and go extinct, and few survive to reproduce, and that did NOT happen with the Flood. It's one of the reasons that the traditional religious story is in error. You are operating from a false idea of ancient religious men.

Adam's world, which was much smaller than the present Earth, was totally destroyed in the Flood....in the largest Lake in Turkey. Our Earth was NOT destroyed and Scripture tells us it Never will be destroyed in a Flood. The first world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood Isaiah 24:19 and NOT our world.

There were Millions of prehistoric people, for his grandsons to marry, already here, when Noah arrived. They evolved from prehistoric to modern Human, when they inherited the Human intelligence of Adam, the first Human. NO Bottleneck is indicated, since inheriting Human intelligence is InVisible. Try again? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Loudmouth]

There were Millions of prehistoric people, for his grandsons to marry, already here, when Noah arrived. They evolved from prehistoric to modern Human, when they inherited the Human intelligence of Adam, the first Human. NO Bottleneck is indicated, since inheriting Human intelligence is InVisible. Try again? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Evidence?

 

[Kylie]

We don't. The foundation of modern science is thanks to ardent creationist believers, with solid biblical training.

Can you show me a single scientific principle that stems from Biblical thinking instead of scientific inquiry?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you show me a single scientific principle that stems from Biblical thinking instead of scientific inquiry?

You mean to your satisfaction? no.

But for the record, the universe is expanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean to your satisfaction? no.

But for the record, the universe is expanding.

Though it was a Catholic priest that first discovered that that discovery did not arise from biblical thinking. That discovery arose from scientific inquiry by a theist. That only shows that even theists can follow the scientific method.

So the current score of examples provided by AV is Scientific thought 1, Biblical thinking 0.

 

[AV1611VET]

Though it was a Catholic priest that first discovered that that discovery did not arise from biblical thinking.

Is this even a sentence?

If it is, would you please reword it for the mentally impaired?

That discovery arose from scientific inquiry by a theist.

What discovery?

I was asked to show a scientific principle ... not a discovery.

And for the record, are you saying a Catholic priest CONFIRMED it, or DISCOVERED it? or what, exactly?

That only shows that even theists can follow the scientific method.

I have no idea what you're saying.

So the current score of examples provided by AV is Scientific thought 1, Biblical thinking 0.

Oh ... now I get it!

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Styx87]

*snip

Adam's world, which was much smaller than the present Earth, was totally destroyed in the Flood....in the largest Lake in Turkey. Our Earth was NOT destroyed and Scripture tells us it Never will be destroyed in a Flood. The first world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood Isaiah 24:19 and NOT our world.

*snip

Wait... are you saying that Adam lived on a different planet that was completely destroyed by a flood (more specifically the flood of the Bible)?

 

[lasthero]

Wait... are you saying that Adam lived on a different planet that was completely destroyed by a flood (more specifically the flood of the Bible)?

Nobody knows what Aman is saying. Not even him.

Just walk away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this even a sentence?

Yep, too bad that you could not follow it.

If it is, would you please reword it for the mentally impaired?

What discovery?

The one that you were alluding to.

I was asked to show a scientific principle ... not a discovery.

No you weren't. We know you better than that.

And for the record, are you saying a Catholic priest CONFIRMED it, or DISCOVERED it? or what, exactly?



I have no idea what you're saying.

Oh ... now I get it!

Thank you for clarifying.

Please, no false modesty. You knew what you were doing all along. You don't fool anyone.

 

[Armoured]

Wait... are you saying that Adam lived on a different planet that was completely destroyed by a flood (more specifically the flood of the Bible)?

A different planet that dissolved in a lake in Turkey. I'm not trying to be funny, that's really how I parse what he says :o

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dear SZ, I've seen you post this nonsense at other times, but I didn't want to hold you up as a bad example. A Bottleneck happens when many species die out and go extinct, and few survive to reproduce, and that did NOT happen with the Flood. It's one of the reasons that the traditional religious story is in error. You are operating from a false idea of ancient religious men.

Adam's world, which was much smaller than the present Earth, was totally destroyed in the Flood....in the largest Lake in Turkey. Our Earth was NOT destroyed and Scripture tells us it Never will be destroyed in a Flood. The first world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood Isaiah 24:19 and NOT our world.

There were Millions of prehistoric people, for his grandsons to marry, already here, when Noah arrived. They evolved from prehistoric to modern Human, when they inherited the Human intelligence of Adam, the first Human. NO Bottleneck is indicated, since inheriting Human intelligence is InVisible. Try again? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Sorry, it is not nonsense and you know it. And you clearly do not know what a population bottlleneck is. Why didn't you read the articles that I linked?

And it seems your strange nonbiblical ideas are getting weirder and weirder.

So neither scientific nor biblical.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendages.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dear PS, What makes you so mad? It doesn't make me mad when I post to you. I really don't understand the hidden thoughts of some of you. Tell me what you think. It's why we're here. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Not anger, I am just very cynical. And you have to admit, the novelty of your biblical interpretation would make it too tempting a target for rude jokes. Or unintentional rude comments as well. I try not to argue against people's personal interpretations on here because I can get nasty when I do stuff like that. So only people that are continuously rude to me and to other people get that kind of treatment from me; you have to be really stubborn, really ridiculous, and really unpleasant for me to want to directly attack your take on your religion. So far I think there are only 2 people on here who have even gotten close to annoying me that much, but I try not to snap. I might not sound like it on here, but if there was ever a sin I was prone to, it would be wrath. But I don't think I would get mad at you, more so I think you might get mad at me for what I would say were I to directly address how I feel about your biblical interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not anger, I am just very cynical. And you have to admit, the novelty of your biblical interpretation would make it too tempting a target for rude jokes. Or unintentional rude comments as well. I try not to argue against people's personal interpretations on here because I can get nasty when I do stuff like that. So only people that are continuously rude to me and to other people get that kind of treatment from me; you have to be really stubborn, really ridiculous, and really unpleasant for me to want to directly attack your take on your religion. So far I think there are only 2 people on here who have even gotten close to annoying me that much, but I try not to snap. I might not sound like it on here, but if there was ever a sin I was prone to, it would be wrath. But I don't think I would get mad at you, more so I think you might get mad at me for what I would say were I to directly address how I feel about your biblical interpretation.

We call your attidude intolerance.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We call your attidude intolerance.

I go out of my way not to be rude about religious beliefs, and I am not intolerant of religion. Ridiculous isn't a measure of what I think of your belief, it is a measure of how you defend it.

I have even defended religion when antitheists get abusive. Why are you calling me intolerant? I get mad from frustration in debates, religion doesn't make me mad.

 

[AV1611VET]

I go out of my way not to be rude about religious beliefs, and I am not intolerant of religion. Ridiculous isn't a measure of what I think of your belief, it is a measure of how you defend it.

I have even defended religion when antitheists get abusive. Why are you calling me intolerant? I get mad from frustration in debates, religion doesn't make me mad.

If how you felt about my interpretation would lead you to doing something that would get you moderated, I would say that is an example of intolerance.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If how you felt about my interpretation would lead you to doing something that would get you moderated, I would say that is an example of intolerance.

However, as she does not actually do that which would get her moderated, tolerance prevails.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If how you felt about my interpretation would lead you to doing something that would get you moderated, I would say that is an example of intolerance.

I have a social disorder that makes it hard for me to tell if I am being rude or not, in case you don't remember. I don't want to debate people's personal beliefs because it gives greater opportunities for me to accidentally be rude, especially if something else is frustrating me.

I insult people mostly by accident. But once someone has been constantly rude to me, I feel less obligated to try to be polite and am more likely to get into subjects where it is easier to accidentally insult. If anything, I am intolerant of self righteous jerks who are persistent, not religion, and I actually left atheist forums because it was filled to the brim with religion hating egotistical antitheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

However, as she does not actually do that which would get her moderated, tolerance prevails.

Intolerance starts in the mind.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, and tolerance isn't liking something, so even if I did dislike religion, leaving it be and not openly objecting to it would still be exercising tolerance.

But overall, I am fine with religion, so long as people aren't coming at me guns blazing about how superior their beliefs are and how inferior I will be until I convert.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have a social disorder that makes it hard for me to tell if I am being rude or not, in case you don't remember.

... I'm sorry. I forgot about that.