Evil-ution

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Oh yeah, And grass didn't exist during the lifetimes of most animals that ever lived. Actually grass is only about 55million years old. Simply did not exist before animals.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

I'm not here to save you time. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way I'm just saying that's not how it works. Imagine if I were to say that to a college professor that was teaching evolution theories while I was trying to give evidence of creation. How would that go over. You can continue to believe the evidence wholeheartedly supports evolution and that's your choice, I'm not trying to shove anything your way. What I posted was for the reason I've already stated, read it or not I'm sure we'll both find ways to live our lives in a way we each see fit.

I saved you the trouble. Kindly explain how the Scriptures don't mean what they say. Even though that statement alone discredits creationism theory based on the Bible.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Sorry, what I've posted in this thread explains the Genesis account clearly. I gave you a quick example when I mentioned the 2 different Hebrew words used for light. The Bible wasn't written in English so there are times when it's beneficial to see what the original text says. I'm sure you understand that not every word translates directly to another language so an aproximation is sometimes used as that's the best that language offers.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Sorry, what I've posted in this thread explains the Genesis account clearly. I gave you a quick example when I mentioned the 2 different Hebrew words used for light. The Bible wasn't written in English so there are times when it's beneficial to see what the original text says. I'm sure you understand that not every word translates directly to another language so an aproximation is sometimes used as that's the best that language offers.

In all the posts you made I found 0 references to a mistranslated version of the words light, sun, moon, or stars from the Hebrew. I found an arbitrary reference to a possible mistranslated word of hebrew to "circle." There's no getting around it, the bible CLEARLY says Daylight existed BEFORE the SUN, and that plants before the Sun as well. This explanation makes sense from a centuries old knowledge of science. Not a 21st centuries perspective.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Found it for you with a quick search: "In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ʼohr, light in a general sense; but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma‧ʼohr′, which refers to the source of light.

"Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries."

That's the only bone I'll throw. Like I said, read what I wrote or not but it's there and explains clearly many of the things discussed in this thread from an opposing view. My goal is met and I have no further need to pick apart pieces when the whole is so nicely defined.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Do you see what you are doing? You are straining to find skewed possible interpretations because you can't accept the logical conclusion that this partition of the bible was written by primitive man who didn't know any better. And simply recorded as best he knew. To reject science on this notion is pure foolishness. You are trying WAAAY to hard to twist the words of the bible to make them fit the current days knowledge, when they frankly just don't.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

Found it for you with a quick search: "In the description of what happened on the first “day,” the Hebrew word used for light is ʼohr, light in a general sense; but concerning the fourth “day,” the word used is ma‧ʼohr′, which refers to the source of light.
"Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries."

That's the only bone I'll throw. Like I said, read what I wrote or not but it's there and explains clearly many of the things discussed in this thread from an opposing view. My goal is met and I have no further need to pick apart pieces when the whole is so nicely defined.

Which is exactly what I said. The only light on earth comes from the sun moon and stars. Men did not understand that the sun caused the light of day in the time the Bible was written. It's just obvious. They viewed the Sun as arbitrary to life on earth, not causal.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You're so mad you resurrect debates and then use nothing but putdowns and your mod power.

Only in your delusional world did I resurrect the fatmat debate. Tell me, what color is the sky in your world? Is it blue, like in ours?

Attacks are things that are purely ad hominem. They don't pertain to the discussion at all, but are an attempt to discredit a person based on character rather than the discussion at hand.

I dont even have to reply to this, you condemn yourself...

I know. cotjones is an ahole.

There you have it. By undeleting what you did, it exposed the fact that I foretold you not moving the thread from the tech section so you would seem justified in banning me. You deleted ONLY the posts of me doing that which makes it obvious what you did there. So... there is one of your lies.

That would make a lot more sense if I didnt warn you to stop, prior to giving you the infractions which lead to your ban (and only for the rules you violated AFTER I warned you to stop). Try again.

Where is the "I" in James when people call them Jim?

Ah, so changing my name to ahole-ic was the moral equivalent to calling someone named James "Jim". lmao!

So tell me, why did you chose to add an E to my name, and spell it "ahole-ic"? The more you deny you were calling me an asshole, the more absurd you look. Are you really blind to this fact, really? Either you are lying through your teeth, or you truly believe this nonsense, which indicates an even larger problem than an inability to admit your fault. Either way indicates you have some real issues.

That's really odd considering the ban message I received.

Oh hey look, another implication with no substance to back it up, from you... Im shocked! Go ahead, tell us what your ban message was. lol

You clearly have a grudge against me or you wouldn't argue with only me in every thread. You wouldn't wait 24 hours until the thread went another direction and then hijack just to resume attacking me again if you didn't have a grudge. You are masking intolerance with tolerance. If that were not so, you wouldn't be doing exactly what you're doing. I just tell the truth about you every time you single me out.

I love how you see a conspiracy, towards you, in everything I do. Center of the world much brah? I replied to this thread, when I did, because I had not read it previously. As for me "attacking" you, we already covered this. To you, Im "attacking" you by disagreeing with you. I disagree with you on this topic, no conspiracy, no vendetta... I think you are wrong. Get a grip.

fear of looking justified? I'm guilty of not proof reading before I click save also. LOL

Im afraid your veiled implication will have to be more specific, as I have no clue what you proof reading has to do with your failure to realize I would look unethical for "baiting" you into a situation, just to ban you. Is my logic going over your head? Or are you being intentionally vague to hide the fact you cannot address this flaw in your logic chain?

I referenced a past thread where you did something you denied doing. You asked for proof. I proved it. Then you bumped the topic and have tried soliciting me to post in it. No amount of lying and spinning can change that so you should stop. lol

This is how you operate, you state your claims so vaguely as to give you wiggle room to squirm out of it if someone calls you on your bullshit. Didnt work this time pal, I didnt deny anything about the fatmat thread, you, or my 'vendetta' against you until after YOU brought it up. As for you 'proved it'... proved what? That the thread existed? I never denied that. Trying to cloud the real issue here Crack? The ral issue here is YOU brought up the fatmat thread, YOU are still butthurt over it, and YOU brought that ban on yourself. Go ahead dude, the thread is very active, go cry to another mod and see if he agrees with your twisted memory of how that thread transpired. But you wont, because you know not one single mod will agree with you. All you have is your baseless claims.

This is the thunderdome. You could no more ban me here for rebuking your attacks that YOU started (you singled ME out in this thread and threw the first blow) than you could make another member a mod.

Yet another implication of some mysterious force that is keeping me from banning you? The last time you dared me to ban you was when you continued to break the rule I told you not to. How'd that work out for you? lol Again, I could have perma-banned you, on the spot, and nobody would have raised so much as an eyebrow. You clearly have no idea what I can and cannot do, yet that does not stop you from assuming you do know.

And yes, I fully realize what you are doing here, trying to bait me to go into some tirade about I could ban you any time I want for any reason I want, there by making me look out of control. Unfortunately, you arent as smart as you think you are. Maybe if I truly hated you, like you think I do, that would have worked.

Oh sure you can click the button, but you will immediately be demodded.

Says who?

Also, about all of the things you cited such as my name etc, I told the mods i would change it if they gave me some guidelines on what was acceptable because I only have 1 change left. I don't want to use it just to be banned again and I'd like to keep eCrack if possible. Nobody has done that yet, so I haven't changed it. When asked to change my sig I did that. I comply with all rules I'm made aware that I'm in violation of.... unless it's a mod attacking me and threatening me when he can't handle my counter attack.

This is the crux of the problem, you do not get to decide when its okay to break the rules.

As for your name, you missed the point. The point was that myself and the other mods have made concessions for you (including myself, personally, yes)... and the thanks gained from that was you accusing me of having some vendetta against you. Your self awareness on this forum is not nearly so complete as you think it is.

The evidence that you covered up why you banned me? It's already there and I've stated it many many times. Ignoring it and continuing to ramble isn't changing that fact.

You are really good at claiming that 'evidence' exists, but really lousy at producing that evidence. Every single reply in that thread is now visible, so post up what I covered up. You wont, because you cant. All you have is a non-specific accusation with absolutely no evidence, no quotes, nothing but your hot air. If its "already there", it would take you what, about 2 mins or less to quote that info here? So why dont you do it? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

Already debunked your entire premise here. You didn't rebut it but rather ignored it... continued to insult and provoke and keep this going. Why?... out of your tolerance for me of course.

So you cant explain where the E is in my s/n. Noted. Again, keep claiming you didnt mean "ahole-ic" as an insult, it only digs your hole deeper here and tarnishes what reputation you have left. So yes, please, keep denying... honestly it suits my argument better than you simply manning up and admitting you were insulting me. But oh gosh, that would 'debunk your entire premise', wouldn't it? No wonder you dodge the answer like a whore dodging herpes. This shit is hilarious, please keep your delusions going. I hope to god you really believe this crap, its like watching an episode of Jerry Springer... the "at least Im not that guy" effect.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

You're starting to sound more like ecrack here, not a good direction. Up until now we've had a decent conversation with both stating our side and not flinging accusations. You refuse to read my proof but want to shout yours and degrade me for doing things I haven't. What I posted answers your allegations perfectly and more but you would rather argue against what you haven't read. Again, in what institute of learning is that acceptable? Why do you feel it is here? I will no longer be responding to things I've posted about here that CLEARLY answers your question/allegations.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

You're starting to sound more like ecrack here

That was a low blow. lol

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

That was a low blow. lol

You're not THAT bad cotjones, lol. that's why the "more" qualifier. Going in the direction of ignoring information then arguing against it.

 

[cotjones 10+ year member]

You're starting to sound more like ecrack here, not a good direction. Up until now we've had a decent conversation with both stating our side and not flinging accusations. You refuse to read my proof but want to shout yours and degrade me for doing things I haven't. What I posted answers your allegations perfectly and more but you would rather argue against what you haven't read. Again, in what institute of learning is that acceptable? Why do you feel it is here? I will no longer be responding to things I've posted about here that CLEARLY answers your question/allegations.

The BIBLE CLEARLY SAYS PLANTS AND LIGHT EXISTED BEFORE THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS. Period.

You can believe that this is because the correct translation is far from what the Bible says. Good luck. But like I said, MUUUUUCH more likely the author just didn't get it. There are TONS of examples where the Bible is written this way. You are grasping straws trying to find some reason to reject the most logical explanation. That makes me lose a bit of respect, but it's also not far what i'd expect. When it comes down to it the most logical assumption is that the creation events depicted in the Bible are simply symbolic. And thus do nothing to discredit evolution.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

The point of view of the writers and their knowledge at the time is part of my posts, try reading, then you'll know what to argue against. I think this will be my last post here on the subject as my argument is complete and here for all to see. I wish you nothing but the best in life.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Cot and Manti5, you both feel very strongly about your views and convictions, I respect that. I hope you find a way to respect each other for the same reason, even if you cant find a way to agree. Lets all remember what is most important here, to not sound crazy like ecrack.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Cot and Manti5, you both feel very strongly about your views and convictions, I respect that. I hope you find a way to respect each other for the same reason, even if you cant find a way to agree. Lets all remember what is most important here, to not sound crazy like ecrack.

LOL, that's my morning affirmation every day. And I have NO ill will towards cot at all, for the most part we've both been very respectful and I hope he feels the same.