dalaman:


Ogbeni I showed you the christain apologist blog that you plagiarized from and show you how you lifted the words from the apologist blog word for word and changed some of it a lil as you always do when stealing other people's materials.

You went to drop websites at me when I clearly showed you that what you wrote was taken almost word for word from the Christian apologist blog.

Learn to have some shame pls. The other I caught you red handed plagiarizing and your excuse was that it states what you believe bla bla bla. Learn to have some shame.

LMAO take out your childish deception and kiddie anger on the scientific journals which corroborate my posts.

Why have you not called those ones liars as well?

You obviously have no iota of shame in you and will even lie to yourself in the face of truth.

butterflylion:


LMAO take out your childish deception and kiddie anger on the scientific journals which corroborate my posts.

Why have you not called those ones liars as well?

You obviously have no iota of shame in you and will even lie to yourself in the face of truth.

Ogbeni after copying and pasting something word for word from an apologist blog you are still here yapping thrash abi? Continue, my own is to always expose your thieving ways. Mr lying rat.

dalaman:


Ogbeni after copying and pasting something word for word from an apologist blog you are still here yapping thrash abi? Continue, my own is to always expose your thieving ways. Mr lying rat.

Yet the scientific journals say the so called apologist websites are right. So who is the lying rat?

butterflylion:


LMAO childish as usual. If something isn't crawling what would it be Doing? Staying still? Show me one animal or reptile that is a stationary creature oh Lord of liars.

Snakes were not crawling creatures originally as declared by the Bible which was why God now said THEY WILL NOW CRAWL.

This is good news translation

.

It clearly says FROM NOW ON. which means it wasn't so originally. If something wasn't crawling on its belly before this means it was walking or flying.

If it walked it had limbs.
If it flew it had limbs too

So either way it had limbs. Keep on lying to yourself.

Where is the limb mentioned? It could be flying, stationary, humping or jumping . It wasn't stated. Where does it say it had limbs? I could say it had wings and was flying before it was cursed to start crawling and you can't have any thing to counter it. Just show me where it says the snake had limbs instead of throwing your useless opinion and assumptions at me.

butterflylion:


Yet the scientific journals say the so called apologist websites are right. So who is the lying rat?

. You've finally acknowledge abi. Well done. Where does the scientific journal say that snakes eat dust? Show me!

dalaman:


Where is the limb mentioned? It could be flying, stationary, humping or jumping . It wasn't stated. Where does it say it had limbs? I could say it had wings and was flying before it was cursed to start crawling and you can't have any thing to counter it. Just show me where it says the snake had limbs instead of throwing your useless opinion and assumptions at me.

Wings are simply limb extensions.

As always you didn't know that.

I posted good news translation for you which shows it was never originally a crawling creature. It wasn't a tree so wasnt stationary.

If it was humping then it had a limb. If it was stationary then it had limbs because it stood on something

Whatever you have to offer shows it had limbs "of some kind". Simple as ABC.

dalaman:


. You've finally acknowledge abi. Well done. Where does the scientific journal say that snakes eat dust? Show me!

Don't you like reading anymore? It also confirms that snakes flick their tongue off the ground. Maybe it's flicking it's tongue off a McDonalds burger and not the ground which is made up or dirt, dust and soil.

butterflylion:


Wings are simply limb extensions.

As always you didn't know that.

I posted good news translation for you which shows it was never originally a crawling creature. It wasn't a tree so wasnt stationary.

If it was humping then it had a limb. If it was stationary then it had limbs because it stood on something

Whatever you have to offer shows it had limbs "of some kind". Simple as ABC.

Wings are NOT limbs. They are NOT the same that much is very clear.

It wasn't a crawling creature but a flying creature originally.

Ogbeni, where does it say that snakes have limbs? No christian blogs to plagiarize from?

butterflylion:


Don't you like reading anymore? It also confirms that snakes flick their tongue off the ground. Maybe it's flicking it's tongue off a McDonalds burger and not the ground which is made up or dirt, dust and soil.

Ogbeni, where is it written that snakes eat dust all their lives in the scientific journals? Show me na.

dalaman:


Wings are NOT limbs. They are NOT the same that much is very clear.

It wasn't a crawling creature but a flying creature originally.

Ogbeni, where does it say that snakes have limbs? No christian blogs to plagiarize from?

Your scientific illiteracy is so profound it will blind the sun in all its glory.

Call this scientific journal a liar too.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3333764/

Extract:

The forelimbs and hindlimbs of vertebrates are serially homologous structures. Bird limbs differ from many other vertebrates in that they have only three digits in the forelimb (wing), but four digits in the hindlimb (leg). This pattern has emerged through a process of digit loss during evolution. While the morphological digit identities of the hindlimb are widely accepted as digits I to IV, corresponding to digits I to IV of the ancestral pentadactyl (five digit) limb (Figure ​(Figure1),1), such definitive identities have yet to be designated to the digits of the wing

.



A wing is just a limb with feathers olodo.

A wing has phalanges and The phalanges are the bones that make up the fingers of the hand and the toes of the foot.

A wing also has metacarpals. The metacarpal bones or metacarpus, form the intermediate part of the skeletal hand located between the phalanges of the fingers and the carpal bones of the wrist which forms the connection to the forearm.

The ulna is a long bone found in the forearm that stretches from the elbow to the smallest finger,

The radius or radial bone is one of the two large bones of the forearm

The humerus is the long bone in the upper arm. It is located between the elbow joint and the shoulder

The attached is what the anatomy of a wing looks like Mr olodo.

butterflylion:


Yes and they all take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES. In fact they cannot stop themselves from flicking their tongues if their lives depended on it. Their feeding is tied to it as the tongue aids smell and tracking of prey.

So they must keep flicking and keep on taking in dust.

Lie to yourself if you wish.

The Christian and Muslim are ready to lie, kill and commit suicide to defend their doctrine no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

If just because snakes take in minute amount of dust while smelling with their tongues, it means they take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES, it therefore means all animals on earth eat or take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES.
When you breath or smell you must take in small quantities of dust ( as there is dust everywhere), which is then expelled from the body through sneezing.

Dalman, we better let butterflylion continue with his delusions, he is becoming desperate and suicidal in his attempt to defend his doctrine, just like Boko Haram.

butterflylion:


Genesis 3:14



That clearly shows you that it originally was not crawling on its belly. If it was crawling on its belly originally then what God pronounced wouldn't be a curse. Tell me your own common sense is blocked to that too.

If someone is rich and you wish to curse the person you will not say " you will be rich all the days of your life" will you? He already is rich so nothing said there.

However you will say something detrimental to his riches such as " you will suddenly come to poverty".

I know you will also wish to argue this so knock yourself out.

Snakes crawling on its belly is not a curse, it is evolution. The snake must have evolved from a swamp dwelling lizard. According to evolution, environment determines physical features. A lizard living in a swamp would have no need of legs, therefore it will quickly lose it. After it has left the swamps and evolved other adaptive featured, like elongated body, it might not need to evolve legs again.

Below are some lizards that looks like snakes.

wirinet:


The Christian and Muslim are ready to lie, kill and commit suicide to defend their doctrine no matter how stupid and crazy it is.

If just because snakes take in minute amount of dust while smelling with their tongues, it means they take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES, it therefore means all animals on earth eat or take in dust ALL THEIR LIVES.
When you breath or smell you must take in small quantities of dust ( as there is dust everywhere) which is then expelled from the body through sneezing.

Dalman, we better let butterflylion continue with his delusions, he is becoming desperate and suicidal in his attempt to defend his doctrine, just like Boko Haram.

The Bible also said man was made out of the dust of the Earth. They have been scientific evidence to show that traces of minerals in the earth are also in our body.

Do you think the Bible was wrong on this one?

fellowman:


The Bible also said man was made out of the dust of the Earth. They have been scientific evidence to show that traces of minerals in the earth are also in our body.

Do you think the Bible was wrong on this one?

Do you know what it means to say that something is made up of dust? The writers of the bible do NOT know what human beings are made up of. Of they did they would have stated it.

dalaman:


Do you know what it means to say that something is made up of dust? The writers of the bible do NOT know what human beings are made up of. Of they did they would have stated it.

I didn't say made up of dust, read what I said.

God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust. (Genesis 3:19)

fellowman:


I didn't say made up of dust, read what I said.

God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust. (Genesis 3:19)

How many snakes eat man?

fellowman:
I didn't say made up of dust, read what I said.
God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust. (Genesis 3:19)

LordVoldermort:
How many snakes eat man?

Where and how, LordVoldermort, if I may ask,
have you got the idea, that snakes eat man
or the notion where snakes were said will eat man?

MuttleyLaff:


Where and how, LordVoldermort, if I may ask,
have you got the idea, that snakes eat man
or the notion where snakes were said will eat man?

He said man is made from dust (you said it too) he's trying to say that Snakes eat men

LordVoldermort:
He said man is made from dust (you said it too)

Yes, I did
and based on the knowledge that the decomposition of the man ends up being dust
As a matter of fact and FYI, Adam's name means clay, as in, composed from/with clay (i.e. dust)

LordVoldermort:
he's trying to say that Snakes eat men

Be alert, be reflective,
because your enemy Satan roars like a lion
and is walking and seeking whom he may devour.
- 1 Peter 5:8

I think he made a mistype and/or misspeak
Correctly, it is the serpent whom was said "dust you will eat, all the days of your life" and not snake or snakes
Dust in that statement, clearly is man, and eat, clearly is devour

Man's number 1 enemy, besides himself, is the serpent
The serpent, is after one thing, and it's the one thing so important to man and man's eternity
There are forces, for and against, this important thing
The forces, will do anything it will take, to save or steal, kill and destroy it

The serpent heartily eats and keeps the soul as souvenir

MuttleyLaff:
Yes, I did
and based on the knowledge that the decomposition of the body becomes dust
Even Adam's name means clay, as in composed from/with clay (i.e. dust)

Be alert, be reflective, because your enemy Satan roars like a lion and is walking and seeking whom he may devour.
- 1 Peter 5:8

I think he made a mistype and/or misspeak
Correctly, it is the serpent whom was said "dust you will eat, all the days of your life" and not snake or snakes
Dust in that statement, clearly is man, and eat, clearly is devour

Man's number 1 enemy, besides himself, is the serpent
The serpent, is after one thing, and it's the one thing so important to man and man's eternity
There are forces, for and against, this important thing
The forces, will do anything it will take, to save or steal, kill and destroy it

The serpent heartily eats and keeps the soul as souvenir

So the serpent is Satan?

LordVoldermort:
So the serpent is Satan?

Join the dots, and you tell me

MuttleyLaff:
Join the dots, and you tell me

So it's metaphorical?

LordVoldermort:
So it's metaphorical?

What is metaphorical?

MuttleyLaff:
What is metaphorical?

Well the serpent wasn't a real serpent it was merely a representation of Satan

LordVoldermort:
Well the serpent wasn't a real serpent it was merely a representation of Satan

The serpent was a real serpent
and one, who allowed itself to be possessed, embodied and influenced by a representation of Satan

MuttleyLaff:
The serpent was a real serpent
and one, who allowed itself to be possessed, embodied and influenced by a representation of Satan

uhh you have to be so confusing why won't you say it's metaphorical

The snake was possessed by Satan yet god cursed the snake?

LordVoldermort:
uhh you have to be so confusing why won't you say it's metaphorical

There is a time and plae to say that
besides, you havent answered me, when I asked you, what you meant by:
"So it's metaphorical?"

LordVoldermort:
The snake was possessed by Satan yet god cursed the snake?

Correctly put, God cursed the serpent.
What the snake, as we see it, is the aftermath of the curse meted to the serpent

fellowman:


I didn't say made up of dust, read what I said.

God made man from the dust; and when his body dies it decomposes and turns again to dust. (Genesis 3:19)

Man is not made from dust. Dust in reference to the earliest period of earth's formation (theists would say creation) consists mainly of silica ( sand) from ground up rocks. The present composition of man shows no signs of silica.

If man alone was made of dust, what of the other animals, what are they made of?

Man will not turn to dust as it decomposes. Bacteria, worms , termites and other insects would feed on the body to decompose it.

I do not know where primitive bible writers got the idea that man (apart from all other animals) turn to dust when they die.

wirinet:


Man is not made from dust. Dust in reference to the earliest period of earth's formation (theists would say creation) consists mainly of silica ( sand) from ground up rocks. The present composition of man shows no signs of silica.

If man alone was made of dust, what of the other animals, what are they made of?

Man will not turn to dust as it decomposes. Bacteria, worms , termites and other insects would feed on the body to decompose it.

I do not know where primitive bible writers got the idea that man (apart from all other animals) turn to dust when they die.

What needs to be clarified is if what these ancient writer(s) called "dust" is also what we mean as dust today...

OkCornel:


What needs to be clarified is if what these ancient writer(s) called "dust" is also what we mean as dust today...

Dust as defined by ancient writers is fine particles of substances such as sand and clay. They were adept at making sculptures of animals from clay. They reasoned must have been molded from clay by gods and have life breathe into it to animate it. They did not know carbon, oxygen, silicon or even atoms.

They were not aware of bacteria eating and decomposing dead bodies, so they reasoned that the disappearing bodies must have turned to dust and mixed with the soil or blown away in the air.

wirinet:


Dust as defined by ancient writers is fine particles of substances such as sand and clay. They were adept at making sculptures of animals from clay. They reasoned must have been molded from clay by gods and have life breathe into it to animate it. They did not know carbon, oxygen, silicon or even atoms.

They were not aware of bacteria eating and decomposing dead bodies, so they reasoned that the disappearing bodies must have turned to dust and mixed with the soil or blown away in the air.

Exactly...I have nothing to add per the bolded...

And the fact that they never had microscopes to see what they referred to as "dust" made them to conclude it was dust man was made from.

Even if they saw micro-organisms...I wonder what name they would have called them...

OkCornel:
What needs to be clarified is if what these ancient writer(s) called "dust" is also what we mean as dust today...

wirinet:
Dust as defined by ancient writers is fine particles of substances such as sand and clay. They were adept at making sculptures of animals from clay. They reasoned must have been molded from clay by gods and have life breathe into it to animate it.
They did not know carbon, oxygen, silicon or even atoms.

They were not aware of bacteria eating and decomposing dead bodies, so they reasoned that the disappearing bodies must have turned to dust and mixed with the soil or blown away in the air.

OkCornel:
Exactly...I have nothing to add per the bolded...

And the fact that they never had microscopes to see what they referred to as "dust" made them to conclude it was dust man was made from.

Even if they saw micro-organisms...I wonder what name they would have called them...

I laugh in Aramaic

What do you know silicon or silica, to be wirinet?
You really think the name or naming, Adam, which means "earth", is just a pluck out of thin air idea?