God's Creation, and Some Misconceptions

[Subduction Zone]

no, FACTS

101G

No. The Bible can be shown to be largely mythical using the sciences.

But then you don't understand science at all. Would you like to learn?

personal opinion always.... NEXT

101G.

No, do you need sources? I can present them. Do you remember how you failed on what causes the seasons? Probably not.

You already failed one challenge. Let's see if you will fail another. Describe what causes the seasons and why. Go ahead and use some scientific terms if you want to.

 

[101G]

Yes, acceleration is a change in velocity

ERROR,
accelerate: undergo a change in velocity.

acceleration: the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

understand your science please.

now, can anyone comment on Genesis 3:16 as to Adam and Eve having Children in the Garden?

101G

 

[101G]

No. The Bible can be shown to be largely mythical using the sciences.

But then you don't understand science at all. Would you like to learn?

reply to Genesis 3:16 with science, as to adam and eve having children in the garden or not.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ERROR,
accelerate: undergo a change in velocity.

acceleration: the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

understand your science please.

now, can anyone comment on Genesis 3:16 as to Adam and Eve having Children in the Garden?

101G

Yes, it is a myth. It never happened. But you refuse to understand even the most basic of sciences. You will probably never understand why the Bible is largely a book of myths.

 

[101G]

Yes, it is a myth. It never happened. But you refuse to understand even the most basic of sciences. You will probably never understand why the Bible is largely a book of myths.

so, we can take it that with science. you cannot disprove that Adam and Eve had children in the Garden. thought so..... NEXT.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

reply to Genesis 3:16 with science, as to adam and eve having children in the garden or not.

101G.

No problem:

Science | AAAS

"Modern humans are a lot alike--at least at the genetic level--compared with other primates. If you compare any two people from far-flung corners of the globe, their genomes will be much more similar than those of any pair of chimpanzees, gorillas, or other apes from different populations. Now, evolutionary geneticists have shown that our ancestors lost much of their genetic diversity in two dramatic bottlenecks that sharply squeezed down the population of modern humans as they moved out of Africa between 60,000 and 50,000 years ago."

"Large, new genetic databases from diverse populations have given researchers new tools to study this problem, but, so far, they have produced mixed results. One model proposes that genetic diversity was lost in two distinct bottlenecks, where groups of hundreds or thousands of migrating people were quickly decimated by disease, starvation, warfare, or some other cause, dramatically reducing the number of adults who bore children that survived. Another suggests that genetic diversity was reduced in a stepwise fashion as an initial group of about 100,000 or so people moved out around the globe, gradually leaving behind more and more people in settlements along the way."

"The team uncovered strong signs of this imbalance between rare alleles and heterozygosity in two populations--one, in people living today in the Middle East, and the other in the Yakut, who live near the Bering Strait. That indicated to the researchers that the first bottleneck occurred as people migrated out of Africa to the Middle East about 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, and the second, 19,000 kilometers away, when they crossed the ancient land bridge in the Bering Strait to the Americas. The scientists report their conclusions online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

What caused the bottlenecks? Amos suggests that obstacles--such as the sea, glaciers, or mountains--on the route from Africa to the Middle East, across the Himalayas and over the Bering Strait, held many migrants back, so that a much smaller group moved on, producing offspring to inhabit new parts of the globe. Changes in climate may also have opened and closed new routes out of Africa, creating new barriers. The results are convincing, says anthropologist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. "This paper is a "nerd's delight, for the clever statistical technology."

How is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

so, we can take it that with science. you cannot disprove that Adam and Eve had children in the Garden. thought so..... NEXT.

101G.

I just did.

But, and here is what you do not seem to understand. I do not even need to disprove it. You don't get to assume it is true if no one disproves it. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof to prove that it is true. And a book of myths is not proof.

 

[rational experiences]

Telling a human man's truth.

Father mother first human position is no sex. No nasty lying man baby theist.

Exact advice memory. Ours.

First humans are not a scientist human.

Science first theoried isn't about man the human scientist. Why he existed.

Science theoried by a man human all of the theories he says science means to his life first. As just a man.

As one human baby man he's mother human adult woman cell a new man.

Never father ever again.

So a Theist lied said he owned two human bodies in his one body. As maths calculus man.

On behalf of two living humans he theoried science...yet he's always just a human.

Mind lost now a homosexual man...some behaviours not even recognising man's human roles or bio type. Now a lived proof he caused the outcome as a man first pretending he was two humans representing both bodies as sciences theist.

Outright lied.

So over a long timed period he's become a very perverted man's mind expression. Not a father of any child his own originality to love and protect. He rapes molests them instead.

Proving father's natural man human child life family protection is conscious gone. Instinctive. Same for all women who would naturally mother protect her sisters baby of any countries child.

Pretty basic why it was stated before.

Man of science caused it by self misrepresentation.

 

[101G]

How is that?

P??? poor. you could have, or should have copied and pasted something better than that...... l
ol, lol, lol,

this section should be called Religion and NO-Science. or Religion and personal opinion.

101G.

 

[101G]

I just did.

But, and here is what you do not seem to understand. I do not even need to disprove it. You don't get to assume it is true if no one disproves it. You made the claim. It is your burden of proof to prove that it is true. And a book of myths is not proof.

common sense is the best science.

101G.

 

[Subduction Zone]

P??? poor. you could have, or should have copied and pasted something better than that...... l
ol, lol, lol,

this section should be called Religion and NO-Science. or Religion and personal opinion.

101G.

That was science. Personal opinion and "NO-Science" is what you have. You so far have refused to even learn what science is and how it is done. You have been using terms that you do not understand and using them improperly and then you have run away when challenged.

I gave you exactly what you asked for. That you did not like the science that shows you to be wrong is not my fault.

 

[Subduction Zone]

common sense is the best science.

101G.

No, common sense is what kills ignorant people every day.

 

[dybmh]

now, can anyone comment on Genesis 3:16 as to Adam and Eve having Children in the Garden?

Yes. I think it's a great way to read the story. For me, "Eve *was* the mother of all living" past tense, is the strong part of the argument. There's other commentators who notice these sorts of details. And it's really interesting to consider the implications of the past tense "was" in the first chapter of Genesis. I never noticed the "was", past tense, when Eve was named. Thanks for bringing this.

 

[danieldemol]

ERROR,
accelerate: undergo a change in velocity.

acceleration: the rate of change of velocity per unit of time.

understand your science please.

I believe If you understood the science you would understand that the two definitions you provided are paraphrasing what I quoted from the science link I provided.

In my opinion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

don't you?

101G.

Off course he doesn't.
People who value evidence, don't believe in myths that fly in the face of evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

implausible? FACE VALUE? Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."


101G

You are wrong.
The ghost that never lies told me.

 

[101G]

That was science. Personal opinion and "NO-Science" is what you have. You so far have refused to even learn what science is and how it is done. You have been using terms that you do not understand and using them improperly and then you have run away when challenged.

I gave you exactly what you asked for. That you did not like the science that shows you to be wrong is not my fault.

GINOLJC, to all.
apparently, one has to meet people where they are at. John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?"

101G will try once again to give you UNDERSTANDING in Science.

Another example. if someone, for argument's sake, John Doe was on a track field getting ready to WALK around the TRACK. mr Doe was standing at the STARTING LINE. then 101G comes walking by walking and says to mr. Doe let's WALK. and while walking 101G said let's increase the speed in our walk.

now, while STANDING still at the STARTING LINE mr. Doe were at zero velocity.

NOW THINK PEOPLE, can mr, Doe at the STARTING LINE A. INCREASE his speed (acceleration)..... which is ZERO, or B, as accelerate states undergo a change in velocity? which one, answer, B.

NOW, THINK AGAIN PEOPLE. While Walking, mr. Doe has undergone a change in velocity, (accelerate), again for argument sake, he has gone from 0 velocity, (standing still), to 1 mile per hour.

now when 101G ask mr. Doe, (while walking, in motion), let's .... "INCREASE" the speed in our Walk, (NOT STANDIND STILL AT THE STARTING LINE), but in motion, now mr. Doe is in, or can execute, or undergo acceleration. because he has already accelerated, from standing STILL.

so, what have we LEARNED, one cannot INCREASE their Walk unless they are WALKING, and not STANDING STILL....... hello,

now TRANSLATE this Scripture, God could not increase Aam and Eve pregnancies, (unless they had pregnancies before) one cannot INCREASE something from NOTHING.

now if one cannot understand this, then one need to go back and be re-educated...... in BASIC SCIENCE.

101G.

 

[101G]

No, common sense is what kills ignorant people every day.

see post #217, now come alive.......

101G.

 

[101G]

Yes. I think it's a great way to read the story. For me, "Eve *was* the mother of all living" past tense, is the strong part of the argument. There's other commentators who notice these sorts of details. And it's really interesting to consider the implications of the past tense "was" in the first chapter of Genesis. I never noticed the "was", past tense, when Eve was named. Thanks for bringing this.

In the Name of the Lords Jesus Christ You are Welcome my Brother, and thank God always for your Enlightenment.

yes, one word can change the whole Context

be blessed.

101G.

 

[101G]

I believe If you understood the science you would understand that the two definitions you provided are paraphrasing what I quoted from the science link I provided.

In my opinion.

see post #217

101G.