# Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?



## LittleNipper

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".


----------



## Votto

LittleNipper said:


> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".



All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Votto said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
Click to expand...


It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.


----------



## LittleNipper

BuckToothMoron said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
Click to expand...

And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.


----------



## fncceo

Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

This could be for two reasons ...

a) a global flood occurred

Or, more likely,

b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)

Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia


----------



## alang1216

Votto said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
Click to expand...

When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt.  It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.


----------



## progressive hunter

the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it


I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
Click to expand...



how do you know it evaporated???


----------



## norwegen

The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).

The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.


----------



## progressive hunter

norwegen said:


> The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).
> 
> The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.


got any proof of that???


----------



## norwegen

progressive hunter said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).
> 
> The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.
> 
> 
> 
> got any proof of that???
Click to expand...

_Dn_ 2:29.


----------



## progressive hunter

norwegen said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).
> 
> The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.
> 
> 
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dn_ 2:29.
Click to expand...

so no proof,,,


----------



## norwegen

progressive hunter said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).
> 
> The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.
> 
> 
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dn_ 2:29.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so no proof,,,
Click to expand...

Are you daft? I just told you. The proof is scriptural.

You know the flood is scripture, right? The same scripture that says repeatedly that the earth is stable, as if mounted on pillars, while the sun moves across the expanse.

But if you insist on thinking that the Bible is science, then your defense of it will never end. Have fun with that.


----------



## mdk




----------



## progressive hunter

norwegen said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the world just like the Med-Persian Empire covered the world (_Dn_ 2:29).
> 
> The world was Palestine and the Levant. That was all.
> 
> 
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Dn_ 2:29.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so no proof,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you daft? I just told you. The proof is scriptural.
> 
> You know the flood is scripture, right? The same scripture that says repeatedly that the earth is stable, as if mounted on pillars, while the sun moves across the expanse.
> 
> But if you insist on thinking that the Bible is science, then your defense of it will never end. Have fun with that.
Click to expand...



so since that area is mostly flat there must have been a magical force field that held the water to that area,,,

man they were smarter in the old days,,,

and I didnt insist on anything,, just asked for proof and you had none,,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
Click to expand...

Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
Click to expand...



so you dug holes under the med???


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you dug holes under the med???
Click to expand...

Oil wells and scientific research drilling led to the discovery now called the Messinian salinity crisis.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it


There is no evidence of a global flood,,,,

The religo's have presented no proof of any such event,,,,

The religo's can't explain why neither the early Egyptian dynasties, nor any of the Chinese dynasties nor the Maya have any history of their civilizations ending by way of a global flood,,,,

Why do the religo's insist on making themselves appear to be Flat Earth Society groupies,,,,?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you dug holes under the med???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil wells and scientific research drilling led to the discovery now called the Messinian salinity crisis.
Click to expand...

fair enough, even though none of it can be proven,,,

so why are you mad that a book you disagree with doesnt have all of eternity's information in it ,???


----------



## Cecilie1200

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
Click to expand...


Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you dug holes under the med???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil wells and scientific research drilling led to the discovery now called the Messinian salinity crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair enough, even though none of it can be proven,,,
> so why are you mad that a book you disagree with doesnt have all of eternity's information in it ,???
Click to expand...

Just seems odd to me that if people were indeed alive during this time why didn't such an event even get a footnote?  Plenty on the flood but nothing on this.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there's nothing on ice ages, continental drift, super volcanoes, asteroids, or mountain building either.  It's almost as if all that happened before man existed.  That week of Genesis was jam packed with stuff.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> 
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you dug holes under the med???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil wells and scientific research drilling led to the discovery now called the Messinian salinity crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair enough, even though none of it can be proven,,,
> so why are you mad that a book you disagree with doesnt have all of eternity's information in it ,???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just seems odd to me that if people were indeed alive during this time why didn't such an event even get a footnote?  Plenty on the flood but nothing on this.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there's nothing on ice ages, continental drift, super volcanoes, asteroids, or mountain building either.  It's almost as if all that happened before man existed.  That week of Genesis was jam packed with stuff.
Click to expand...

or it could be everything you believe is wrong,,,,


plenty on the flood???

I think its a page or two,,,how is that plenty???


----------



## alang1216

Cecilie1200 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
Click to expand...

I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.


----------



## Moonglow

LittleNipper said:


> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".


Is this the same flood the Sumerians wrote about?
Sumerian flood myth found in the Deluge tablet was the epic of Ziusudra.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
Click to expand...

you are aware god didnt write it???


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> or it could be everything you believe is wrong,,,,
> 
> plenty on the flood???
> 
> I think its a page or two,,,how is that plenty???


Is it possible that everything you believe is wrong?

And a page or two is plenty compared to zero.


----------



## Indeependent

I love when people exclaim that many cultures have the same “myth”.
Today we see the same story in one state being told 100 different ways.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
Click to expand...

You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be everything you believe is wrong,,,,
> 
> plenty on the flood???
> 
> I think its a page or two,,,how is that plenty???
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that everything you believe is wrong?
> 
> And a page or two is plenty compared to zero.
Click to expand...

when did I say what I believe???
I'm still trying to figure it out but the evos keep lying to me, at least the bible thumpers admit its based on faith, and can back up some of it with evidence,,,,not so much for the evos


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?
Click to expand...

you have a serious reading problem,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> I love when people exclaim that many cultures have the same “myth”.
> Today we see the same story in one state being told 100 different ways.




and today we have the internet,,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be everything you believe is wrong,,,,
> 
> plenty on the flood???
> 
> I think its a page or two,,,how is that plenty???
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that everything you believe is wrong?
> 
> And a page or two is plenty compared to zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I say what I believe???
> I'm still trying to figure it out but the evos keep lying to me, at least the bible thumpers admit its based on faith, and can back up some of it with evidence,,,,not so much for the evos
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you believe something, even if it is only that evos keep lying to you and the bible thumpers have some evidence.  Those beliefs could be wrong.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be everything you believe is wrong,,,,
> 
> plenty on the flood???
> 
> I think its a page or two,,,how is that plenty???
> 
> 
> 
> Is it possible that everything you believe is wrong?
> 
> And a page or two is plenty compared to zero.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I say what I believe???
> I'm still trying to figure it out but the evos keep lying to me, at least the bible thumpers admit its based on faith, and can back up some of it with evidence,,,,not so much for the evos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing you believe something, even if it is only that evos keep lying to you and the bible thumpers have some evidence.  Those beliefs could be wrong.
Click to expand...

those are observations,,,


----------



## Cecilie1200

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it evaporated???
> 
> 
> 
> Drill a hole anywhere in the Mediterranean Sea basin and you'll encounter very thick layers of salt.  The composition of the layers precisely matches what you'd find if you left a bucket of sea water to evaporate.  Different salts will precipitate at different concentrations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you dug holes under the med???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oil wells and scientific research drilling led to the discovery now called the Messinian salinity crisis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> fair enough, even though none of it can be proven,,,
> so why are you mad that a book you disagree with doesnt have all of eternity's information in it ,???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just seems odd to me that if people were indeed alive during this time why didn't such an event even get a footnote?  Plenty on the flood but nothing on this.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised, there's nothing on ice ages, continental drift, super volcanoes, asteroids, or mountain building either.  It's almost as if all that happened before man existed.  That week of Genesis was jam packed with stuff.
Click to expand...


The flood related to the story the Bible is telling.  The other stuff didn't.  It's almost as if you know very little about storytelling.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a serious reading problem,,,
Click to expand...

I think I know where the problem lies.  

If, as you say, God didn't write it (the Bible), who did if not Man?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a serious reading problem,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I know where the problem lies.
> 
> If, as you say, God didn't write it (the Bible), who did if not Man?
Click to expand...

when did I say man didnt write it???


----------



## Indeependent

Read the verses...The flood came from rain and the subterranean waters.


----------



## alang1216

Cecilie1200 said:


> The flood related to the story the Bible is telling.  The other stuff didn't.  It's almost as if you know very little about storytelling.


I know the difference between theology and history and science.  It seems that not everyone on USMB can say the same.


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
Click to expand...


Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.

There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.


----------



## Dick Foster

LittleNipper said:


> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".



How'd they manage global warming without oil or a petroleum industry? Hell they didn't even have cars fer pity sake. I think Al Gore owes us some answers.


----------



## progressive hunter

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
Click to expand...

there is evidence all over the world,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood related to the story the Bible is telling.  The other stuff didn't.  It's almost as if you know very little about storytelling.
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference between theology and history and science.  It seems that not everyone on USMB can say the same.
Click to expand...



well evolution is a religion so you would know all about it


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a serious reading problem,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I know where the problem lies.
> 
> If, as you say, God didn't write it (the Bible), who did if not Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I say man didnt write it???
Click to expand...

I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that you are saying men wrote the Bible.  Is that true?

What was God's role, if any?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood related to the story the Bible is telling.  The other stuff didn't.  It's almost as if you know very little about storytelling.
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference between theology and history and science.  It seems that not everyone on USMB can say the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well evolution is a religion so you would know all about it
Click to expand...

Nope.  Nothing supernatural about it.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> You saying the Bible is not the work of God but of Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have a serious reading problem,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think I know where the problem lies.
> 
> If, as you say, God didn't write it (the Bible), who did if not Man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when did I say man didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that you are saying men wrote the Bible.  Is that true?
> 
> What was God's role, if any?
Click to expand...



you need to find a church if you want that info,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood related to the story the Bible is telling.  The other stuff didn't.  It's almost as if you know very little about storytelling.
> 
> 
> 
> I know the difference between theology and history and science.  It seems that not everyone on USMB can say the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well evolution is a religion so you would know all about it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  Nothing supernatural about it.
Click to expand...

uhhhh rocks magically turning into humans is as supernatural as it gets,,,


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lysistrata said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
Click to expand...


Couldn't tell you.  No one appears to have written those stories down, and I'm not psychic.  I wasn't aware that I was required to know every possible thing in the history of the world that some Internet 'tard might demand of me in order to "justify" believing what I believe to said Internet 'tard.

Tell me, which of the things YOU believe do YOU have to justify to me or others _via _having all knowledge of all things about which WE might choose to interrogate you?


----------



## Lysistrata

progressive hunter said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
Click to expand...


Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?


----------



## progressive hunter

Lysistrata said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
Click to expand...



if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,

A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,

and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Votto said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
Click to expand...

NO.


Just like the last 5 times you made this same thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

progressive hunter said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,
> 
> A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,
> 
> and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,
Click to expand...


It could also just be that humans hadn't spread that far out yet.  I believe scientists have agreed for a while that humanity originated somewhere around Mesopotamia and gradually migrated through the world.

Couldn't say.  I wasn't there.

Again, as I already told Lice, I am not responsible for knowing every possible piece of information in the entire history of man, and I am certainly not required to know it to get her permission and approval of my beliefs.  I am, in fact, not required to get or interested in getting her approval in any way.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Dick Foster said:


> How'd they manage global warming without oil or a petroleum industry?


Why don't you look it up for yourself, like a big boy?


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO.
> 
> 
> Just like the last 5 times you made this same thread.
Click to expand...


If it offends you so much that people are DARING to continue talking about something you don't think they should talk about, has it occurred to you at all that you could just . . . not join the threads?


----------



## Lysistrata

progressive hunter said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,
> 
> A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,
> 
> and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,
Click to expand...


You said "if bible accounts are to be believed." Should they be? There might have been a flood/earth quake in ancient times, but what of the story of only a small group of people and their animals surviving? 
If people all over the world date their history at least back to the 5,000-year B.C.E., all of the people all over the world did not die. The middle eastern saga at least began in 5779, with the Hebrews. Why do you think everyone died in the flood? People even then were a lot smarter than you think. They would know enough how to get out of the way of rising water.

The one thing I get from the middle eastern sagas of the three Abrahamic faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, is that they did not travel much and did not know what was going on in the rest of the world.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,
> 
> A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,
> 
> and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,
Click to expand...



“_if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,”_

Lordy, man. You’re not paying attention at bible study lessons. Noah and his immediate family were on their pleasure cruise. They survived the flood, according to the fable, to repopulate the planet. A little incest and familial relations were OK with the gods.  


“_A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,”_

Why,,, ummm,,,yes,,, a lack of evidence is the best way to confirm an event,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Cecilie1200 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO.
> 
> 
> Just like the last 5 times you made this same thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it offends you so much that people are DARING to continue talking about something you don't think they should talk about, has it occurred to you at all that you could just . . . not join the threads?
Click to expand...

It didn't offend me. 

And, by the way, humans originated in Africa.


----------



## james bond

The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.  

Of course the atheists couldn't stand it, so they made up their humongous lies about uniformitarianism, evolution, and long-time around the 1850s.  Today, they made up global warming and climate change and are going to asteroid and supervolcano end of the world scenarios.  The world isn't stupid.  They do not buy this.  Bad science means bad mythologies.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And, by the way, humans originated in Africa.



Then you can't explain white people.


----------



## rightwinger

Not as much evidence as Climate Change

But Conservatives would rather believe a flood


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO.
> 
> 
> Just like the last 5 times you made this same thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it offends you so much that people are DARING to continue talking about something you don't think they should talk about, has it occurred to you at all that you could just . . . not join the threads?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It didn't offend me.
> 
> And, by the way, humans originated in Africa.
Click to expand...


Suuuuuure it didn't.  That's why you're griping about it.


----------



## james bond

AGW and climate change believers.  Delusional liars.  Sill no flooding of islands at sea level.


----------



## progressive hunter

Lysistrata said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,
> 
> A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,
> 
> and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "if bible accounts are to be believed." Should they be? There might have been a flood/earth quake in ancient times, but what of the story of only a small group of people and their animals surviving?
> If people all over the world date their history at least back to the 5,000-year B.C.E., all of the people all over the world did not die. The middle eastern saga at least began in 5779, with the Hebrews. Why do you think everyone died in the flood? People even then were a lot smarter than you think. They would know enough how to get out of the way of rising water.
> 
> The one thing I get from the middle eastern sagas of the three Abrahamic faiths, Christians, Muslims, Jews, is that they did not travel much and did not know what was going on in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...



how do you run from water that covers everything???
and how do you know all the people other than noah and his family didnt die???were you there???

and the muslims are johnny come latelys to the party so they have no real ancient history,,

not sure about the people all over the world dating their history since we can barely keep track of what we know,,,but  do know that far back their would be very few people that existed,,,scientist have said we all started from two people,,, but when was that??


----------



## BuckToothMoron

LittleNipper said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
Click to expand...


Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.


----------



## LittleNipper

Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

LittleNipper said:


> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com


No.

Wait a minute...last time you started a thread about this, your attempt to slither out from under thre false crap you said was to say that the flood was never "global", but just appreared that way to the ignorant, iron age fools who invented the flood myth.

You dont even know what you are going to say next, do you?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.
> 
> Of course the atheists couldn't stand it, so they made up their humongous lies about uniformitarianism, evolution, and long-time around the 1850s.  Today, they made up global warming and climate change and are going to asteroid and supervolcano end of the world scenarios.  The world isn't stupid.  They do not buy this.  Bad science means bad mythologies.



It really is remarkable how delusional the ID’iot creationists are toward the relevant sciences. 

Bad mythologies make bad religious beliefs.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com


Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.


----------



## Lysistrata

Cecilie1200 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did this "god" have a relationship to all people across the world? People in India, China, the folks in north, central, south America, Pacific peoples? The currant year in the Hebrew calendar alone is 5779. I do not know about the calendars of the these other civilizations.
> 
> There is evidence that a catastrophic event occurred in the middle east, possibly opening up the Bosphorus, submerging some lands. I read somewhere that divers are uncovering evidence of buildings submerged in various seas (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, etc.) that has been preserved due to the oxygen qualities in the water.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there is evidence all over the world,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even if so, there is not a lot of evidence as to how people all over the world at this time perceived this event. There is no reason to take the word of a small group of middle easterners when there were human beings all over this planet. What did the people in northern Europe, north and south America, those on the Indian subcontinent, the African peoples, the Pacific peoples think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if the bible accounts are to be believed, there were no other people to tell the story since all were killed,,,
> 
> A lack of evidence could go towards confirming the event,,,
> 
> and also there is no way to know where noah started from, just that he ended up in the mountains of Ararat,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It could also just be that humans hadn't spread that far out yet.  I believe scientists have agreed for a while that humanity originated somewhere around Mesopotamia and gradually migrated through the world.
> 
> Couldn't say.  I wasn't there.
> 
> Again, as I already told Lice, I am not responsible for knowing every possible piece of information in the entire history of man, and I am certainly not required to know it to get her permission and approval of my beliefs.  I am, in fact, not required to get or interested in getting her approval in any way.
Click to expand...


I never said that you had to get my approval to believe any story you wish to believe in. If you want to believe that you, me, the Mongol Hordes, the Vikings, the Mayans, the Chinese, the Indians, the Polynesians, the Africans, and everyone else are related to Noah and those he spermed, go right ahead. Just drop Lucy a thank-you note. Address: Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania.


----------



## rightwinger

Strange question

How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?

A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
How could they have survived?


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> Strange question
> 
> How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?
> 
> A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
> How could they have survived?




who said all of them survived???

most likely not every single part of their ecosystem was destroyed and all that needed to survive was 2 of them,,,


----------



## LittleNipper

rightwinger said:


> Strange question
> 
> How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?
> 
> A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
> How could they have survived?


God took care of Noah, God can take care of selected plants and animals. Perhaps there were quiet areas with little or no turbulence, There was always the possibility of large mats of floating vegetation. Evolutionists do not have all the answers...


----------



## LittleNipper

rightwinger said:


> Not as much evidence as Climate Change
> 
> But Conservatives would rather believe a flood


The Flood was/is the greatest example of climate change! I accept both but not without GOD's influence.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...

Who is relevant and who determines that ?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.
> 
> Of course the atheists couldn't stand it, so they made up their humongous lies about uniformitarianism, evolution, and long-time around the 1850s.  Today, they made up global warming and climate change and are going to asteroid and supervolcano end of the world scenarios.  The world isn't stupid.  They do not buy this.  Bad science means bad mythologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is remarkable how delusional the ID’iot creationists are toward the relevant sciences.
> 
> Bad mythologies make bad religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

I find evolutionists the most delusional sort. They actually feel that they are beyond reproach. Evolution is a very bad mythology. GOD is real.


----------



## LittleNipper

Evolutionary scientist perceives that those that have promoted intelligent design and creation are not treated honestly and he gets attacked for his opinions... A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
Click to expand...


I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.
> 
> Of course the atheists couldn't stand it, so they made up their humongous lies about uniformitarianism, evolution, and long-time around the 1850s.  Today, they made up global warming and climate change and are going to asteroid and supervolcano end of the world scenarios.  The world isn't stupid.  They do not buy this.  Bad science means bad mythologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is remarkable how delusional the ID’iot creationists are toward the relevant sciences.
> 
> Bad mythologies make bad religious beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I find evolutionists the most delusional sort. They actually feel that they are beyond reproach. Evolution is a very bad mythology. GOD is real.
Click to expand...


Can you identify which of the gods are real?

How do you know?

I agree that mythologies make religion and religions tend to fail when the mythologies are exposed as fraud. 

I think arguments are cheapened when people negligently toss around claims of possessing “proof of god(s)” and that proof is nothing more than the copy and paste YouTube videos someone found while scouring the internet.

What’s truly disturbing in the copy and pasted articles offered by the more hyper-religious is that we are met with comments requiring that we (paraphrasing here) “_drop this narrow minded classification for the word “scientific” and/or reality”_. Drop them in favor of what – rumor and superstition? Nothing contained in any of the posts by the religious folks provides us with proof of any god(s) let alone the Christian sectarian version of god(s).

Let’s look at it another way. I make no claims about existence other than its perceivable and it's natural. Consistently, this claim relies on logic and reason to uphold itself. The theist asserts that "logic and reason are not up to the task of envisioning the "reality" of the "man behind the curtain" paradigm, i.e., the supernatural realms of gods.

Now I already conclude I have made my claim logically-- that reality is logical, and reasonably -- that reality is rational. But what do religionists claim?

That logic is flawed and reason is flawed and limits our perception. Well, if you are right, you are admitting that the very tools you use to make your perception/assertion -- is flawed and not to be trusted!

If you are wrong -- then you are simply wrong, or illogical and irrational. And why should we listen to the assertions of someone who admits they are making irrational and illogical statements? What discerns any difference between the assertions of the theist, assertions made without reason or logic, and a man in a padded room who thinks himself Napoleon (to use the cliché)


----------



## LittleNipper

I don't believe "so called" peer review amounts to real investigation but merely denial on the part of those predisposed to accept evolution as the only secular "viable" answer. "Secular" and "truth" do not go hand in hand because the exclusion of evidence which seems miraculous distorts the equation.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Evolutionary scientist perceives that those that have promoted intelligent design and creation are not treated honestly and he gets attacked for his opinions... A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page



He lost his credibility. Who cares about a wiki page?


----------



## LittleNipper

Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> I don't believe "so called" peer review amounts to real investigation but merely denial on the part of those predisposed to accept evolution as the only secular "viable" answer. "Secular" and "truth" do not go hand in hand because the exclusion of evidence which seems miraculous distorts the equation.



A YouTube video?

Present your evidence of miracles for peer review and let’s see they withstand scrutiny. How do we test for miracles? If someone sees Jesus in their morning oatmeal, do we just accept it as proof of the jeebus?


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
Click to expand...

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).



How does anyone get converted to “evilutionism”


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
Click to expand...


The major teaching and research universities would disagree.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The major teaching and research universities would disagree.
Click to expand...

How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionary scientist perceives that those that have promoted intelligent design and creation are not treated honestly and he gets attacked for his opinions... A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lost his credibility. Who cares about a wiki page?
Click to expand...

 So, because he sees problems with evolution and notes virtue among those who research creation, a "respected" scientist loses his credibility? Is credibility only built upon accepting mainstream accepted theories and retained by remaining quiet when one notes irregularities with them? What is the value of accepting the esteem of tyrants?


----------



## LittleNipper

A widely respected Evolutionist scientist becomes a Creationist:


----------



## LittleNipper

Here is the testimony of Professor Walter Veith of his journey from Evolution to Creation:


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.


Complete nonsense....


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does anyone get converted to “evilutionism”
Click to expand...

 By not being exposed to the love of GOD and hearing only one side of an argument. That is what is wrong with public schools in the US. Most are totally devoid of any mention of GOD but highly motivated to present EVOLUTION and contrary historic values that are contrary to religious evidence of any kind. Sometimes there are very good educators who are indeed Christian --- but they must be very cautious in trying to be a Christian influence of any sort... Public education in the US is stacked entirely towards secular influence, all other spiritual ideals suffer any inclusion.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> A widely respected Evolutionist scientist becomes a Creationist:



Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Dean kenyon


----------



## Marion Morrison

Noah had a floor in his boat, I suppose. Why did his son have to fuck him in the ass? Wtf is up with that? "Oh yeah, I got a hot wife, lemme just go fuck my drunk dad in the ass" WTF?!

Shit like that has never crossed my mind to do. He's related to you>

Damn! Probably me too, wtf?! Nasty bastard. I'd like to think I came from the other brother(s).


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Here is the testimony of Professor Walter Veith of his journey from Evolution to Creation:




The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The major teaching and research universities would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?
Click to expand...


Two.


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
Click to expand...


We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> I don't believe "so called" peer review amounts to real investigation but merely denial on the part of those predisposed to accept evolution as the only secular "viable" answer. "Secular" and "truth" do not go hand in hand because the exclusion of evidence which seems miraculous distorts the equation.




Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Grady McMurtry


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
Click to expand...


Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify. 

The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?


----------



## idb

alang1216 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt.  It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.
Click to expand...

That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.


----------



## Capri

idb said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt.  It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.
Click to expand...

That depends on from where in the universe one is measuring its age.


----------



## idb

If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.



Go to Church you heathens!!!


----------



## Capri

idb said:


> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.


That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.

Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.


----------



## idb

Capri said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
Click to expand...

Science demands proof.
Faith only requires...well..faith.
They can't debate on the same basis.
Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
Science doesn't have that luxury.
Faith has certainty.
Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.


----------



## Capri

idb said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of that.
However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.


How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?


----------



## Votto

idb said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
Click to expand...


Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.

LOL.

Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.

Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that.
> However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?
Click to expand...


My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Hollie said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that.
> However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.
Click to expand...

How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange question
> 
> How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?
> 
> A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
> How could they have survived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who said all of them survived???
> 
> most likely not every single part of their ecosystem was destroyed and all that needed to survive was 2 of them,,,
Click to expand...


Simple things like a change in alkalinity will kill tens of thousands  of fish

Torrential rain of the magnitude to raise ocean levels ten thousand feet in 40 days would block out all plant life that fish depend on. Once the oceans  retracted, it would take years for that plant life to recover


----------



## rightwinger

Marion Morrison said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that.
> However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.
Click to expand...

I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12


----------



## rightwinger

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The major teaching and research universities would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?
Click to expand...

They all have PhDs in a relevant field.


----------



## Marion Morrison

rightwinger said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't disagree with any of that.
> However, faith may sometimes be in need of reinforcement, sometimes of adjustment. If science can help, then why not include it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perception of the more excitable religionists in these threads is a true revulsion for science. They will choose to exclude science and to ridicule it because there are many irreconcilable difcerences between "faith" and science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How often does that happen? I know like ..7 Engineers and they're all more religious than me? I'm related to 4 of them. TBH, I haven't met an Engineer yet that doesn't believe in God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
Click to expand...


I consider you an idiot and liar, and leftist shill, though.


----------



## TNHarley

Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
Obviously.


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.



Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.

South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!

How does that make you feel?


----------



## TNHarley

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
Click to expand...

That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is relevant and who determines that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The major teaching and research universities would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all have PhDs in a relevant field.
Click to expand...

Not based on the responses I get.
For instance, Fort Fun Indiana has an Internet PhD.


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
> Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
> Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.
Click to expand...


Yoar denial is duly noted.


----------



## alang1216

idb said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt.  It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.
Click to expand...

Good point.  Maybe the years were a lot longer back then.  I do keep seeing people take issue with uniformitarianism.


----------



## TNHarley

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
> Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
> Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoar denial is duly noted.
Click to expand...

Denial because of absolutely no evidence?
I rest my case


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
> Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
> Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoar denial is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial because of absolutely no evidence?
> I rest my case
Click to expand...

 
You're here, right? Bam! Evidence, bitch! You inbred sumbitch.


----------



## Hollie

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> How does that make you feel?
Click to expand...

Yes. Flood tales and fables are common.

Flood Stories from Around the World

To suggest that the tales and fables of a 6,000 year old planet and Noah's pleasure cruise to nowhere are literally true is nonsense.


----------



## LittleNipper

Marion Morrison said:


> Noah had a floor in his boat, I suppose. Why did his son have to fuck him in the ass? Wtf is up with that? "Oh yeah, I got a hot wife, lemme just go fuck my drunk dad in the ass" WTF?!
> 
> Shit like that has never crossed my mind to do. He's related to you>
> 
> Damn! Probably me too, wtf?! Nasty bastard. I'd like to think I came from the other brother(s).





Marion Morrison said:


> Noah had a floor in his boat, I suppose. Why did his son have to fuck him in the ass? Wtf is up with that? "Oh yeah, I got a hot wife, lemme just go fuck my drunk dad in the ass" WTF?!
> 
> Shit like that has never crossed my mind to do. He's related to you>
> 
> Damn! Probably me too, wtf?! Nasty bastard. I'd like to think I came from the other brother(s).


Perhaps you may wish to consider the following:
(a)  The term saw the “nakedness of his father” (Genesis 9:22) is the same term as used in the Levitical law when dealing with incest (e.g. Leviticus 20:11 “And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness:” – KJV). This clearly means having sexual relations.

(b)  Noah knew that the result of this union would upset the balance between good and evil (1 John 3:12, Genesis 4:25). Canaan was the illicit offspring of the sexual act between Ham and the wife of Noah.


----------



## TNHarley

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
> Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
> Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoar denial is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial because of absolutely no evidence?
> I rest my case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're here, right? Bam! Evidence, bitch! You inbred sumbitch.
Click to expand...

More than one religion speaks of a garden of eden. Should we assume those were all over the planet too?
You can have faith your impossible story is true. That's fine. But don't say there are facts when there isn't ANY.
Asshole


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> How does that make you feel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Tales and fables of oid stories are common.
> 
> To suggest that the tales and fables of a 6,000 yesr old planet and Noah's pleasure cruise to nowhere are literally true is nonsense.
Click to expand...

The fossils, the geologic strata, the formation of mountains & canyon, earthquakes, coal & oil formations, meteoric scares on the earth and moon, and separation of the continents ALL point to the fact of Noah's Flood --- at least to those who are not dead set on disproving CHRIST.


----------



## rightwinger

Indeependent said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief
> 
> Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.
> 
> But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.
> 
> 
> 
> “Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The major teaching and research universities would disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They all have PhDs in a relevant field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not based on the responses I get.
> For instance, Fort Fun Indiana has an Internet PhD.
Click to expand...

So do I 

You need one to be a paid messageboard poster


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> 
> 
> That does not prove one man and his family gathered 2 of every species, survived the flood then them and the animals repopulated the planet.
> Kangaroos? What about all those species in Madagascar? Did he row them in a boat back to their island? Did they swim?
> Floods happen. They even happen all over the planet. That doesn't prove the story of Noah in any way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yoar denial is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Denial because of absolutely no evidence?
> I rest my case
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're here, right? Bam! Evidence, bitch! You inbred sumbitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More than one religion speaks of a garden of eden. Should we assume those were all over the planet too?
> You can have faith your impossible story is true. That's fine. But don't say there are facts when there isn't ANY.
> Asshole
Click to expand...


There's plenty of facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.


Yes, and a great fire, and a great plague, blah blah blah....


----------



## Marion Morrison

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a great fire, and a great plague, blah blah blah....
Click to expand...


Yet still your ignorant ass came to be. Thinking you're smarter than all that proceeded you and shit. Yeah, no. You're an indoctrinated ignorant dipshit, sucks to be you. Maybe you could change and grow, IDGAF. You don't make my world go 'round ary a bit. 

I suppose I should be more empathetic, but you're a fuckin' fucktard, so I'm all out of fucks to give.


----------



## LittleNipper

The testimony of Dr Richard Lumsden from an Evolutionist to become a Creationist.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
Click to expand...


Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.


----------



## LittleNipper

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
Click to expand...

So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange question
> 
> How did fish and aquatic animals and plants survive the flood?
> 
> A flood of that magnitude would have destroyed their ecosystem
> How could they have survived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who said all of them survived???
> 
> most likely not every single part of their ecosystem was destroyed and all that needed to survive was 2 of them,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple things like a change in alkalinity will kill tens of thousands  of fish
> 
> Torrential rain of the magnitude to raise ocean levels ten thousand feet in 40 days would block out all plant life that fish depend on. Once the oceans  retracted, it would take years for that plant life to recover
Click to expand...



maybe,,,


----------



## TNHarley

LittleNipper said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
Click to expand...

God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
Click to expand...


Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most likely reason for the world wide flood stories are that there was a real global flood -- Noah's Flood.  It would be one of the most effective ways to kill off everybody on the planet.  The evidence for it is found throughout the geology of the world.  Just look at the bent rock layers.  That could not happen any other way.
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
Click to expand...


It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.

Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
Click to expand...

but you think we came from a rock,,,

so who is the real nutjob??


----------



## james bond

idb said:


> Science demands proof.



No it doesn't.  It shows you know diddly about it.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12



Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?

I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.


----------



## james bond

TNHarley said:


> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.



You are stupid.  He made EMS on the first day.


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
Click to expand...


I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
Click to expand...


Where does that put you?


----------



## TNHarley

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does that put you?
Click to expand...

Smarter than him, obviously.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??
Click to expand...


When did I say I think we came from a rock? For the record, I don’t believe man came from rocks.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say I think we came from a rock? For the record, I don’t believe man came from rocks.
Click to expand...



so you dont believe in evolution???


----------



## bodecea

fncceo said:


> Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.
> 
> List of flood myths - Wikipedia
> 
> This could be for two reasons ...
> 
> a) a global flood occurred
> 
> Or, more likely,
> 
> b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)
> 
> Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia


Local floods would feel global to people who do not move much in their lifetimes....the Mesopotamia area had two great rivers that flooded a lot...the story comes from there.


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.
> 
> List of flood myths - Wikipedia
> 
> This could be for two reasons ...
> 
> a) a global flood occurred
> 
> Or, more likely,
> 
> b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)
> 
> Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Local floods would feel global to people who do not move much in their lifetimes....the Mesopotamia area had two great rivers that flooded a lot...the story comes from there.
Click to expand...

got any proof of that???

and how do you explain all the evidence of a large scale flood that covered continents???


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Floods happen. However there is no evidence the story of Noah and his flood happened.
> Obviously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> South Americans, Indians, Chinese, all of them, your last post was derp!
> 
> How does that make you feel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. Flood tales and fables are common.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World
> 
> To suggest that the tales and fables of a 6,000 year old planet and Noah's pleasure cruise to nowhere are literally true is nonsense.
Click to expand...

No sun until “day 4”.
No one knows how old the earth is.


----------



## fncceo

bodecea said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.
> 
> List of flood myths - Wikipedia
> 
> This could be for two reasons ...
> 
> a) a global flood occurred
> 
> Or, more likely,
> 
> b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)
> 
> Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Local floods would feel global to people who do not move much in their lifetimes....the Mesopotamia area had two great rivers that flooded a lot...the story comes from there.
Click to expand...


There are flood myths from the Americas as well as Asia and Polynesia.  I think it's such a good story that it has occurred across multiple cultures who saw it as the ultimate disaster story.

I wonder if Joseph Campbell ever looked into this.


----------



## Indeependent

TNHarley said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
Click to expand...

There was light and energy before it was diminished by being encapsulated within an orb.


----------



## fncceo

TNHarley said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
Click to expand...


Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
Click to expand...


I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot. 

I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
Click to expand...

I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass

I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology

They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones


----------



## Indeependent

fncceo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
Click to expand...

Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
Click to expand...



I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS


----------



## fncceo

Indeependent said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
Click to expand...


He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say I think we came from a rock? For the record, I don’t believe man came from rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you dont believe in evolution???
Click to expand...


Evolution does not claim man came from rocks. Where do you people get these ideas? Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass
> 
> I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology
> 
> They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones
Click to expand...

so you switched from a catholic religion to evolution religion,,,still a religion,,,


----------



## rightwinger

fncceo said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
Click to expand...

Let there be light

God had to see what he was doing


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say I think we came from a rock? For the record, I don’t believe man came from rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you dont believe in evolution???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does not claim man came from rocks. Where do you people get these ideas? Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

you fuckers are so dumb you dont even know what you support,,,

the primordial soup is the base/beginning of evolution


----------



## Indeependent

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.
Click to expand...

Read the verse...light was enveloped by darkness.
Light always has to emerge from darkness.
We also don’t really concretely know what shemayim and eretz are.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did I say I think we came from a rock? For the record, I don’t believe man came from rocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so you dont believe in evolution???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution does not claim man came from rocks. Where do you people get these ideas? Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.
Click to expand...



you might believe there is evidence, but I know you cant provide any,,,


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
Click to expand...

Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.

As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.


----------



## fncceo

progressive hunter said:


> the primordial soup is the base/beginning of evolution



You're fond of rock soup?

Have any teeth left?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
Click to expand...

but heat would leave a sign, and there are none


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> but you think we came from a rock,,,
> 
> so who is the real nutjob??


We are still coming from rocks.  Where do you think the elements that make us up come from?  Weathered rock.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
Click to expand...


You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## OldLady

Votto said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
Click to expand...

Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting. 
_Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass
> 
> I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology
> 
> They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you switched from a catholic religion to evolution religion,,,still a religion,,,
Click to expand...


Most Catholics believe in evolution

Only fundamentalist Christians do not


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but heat would leave a sign, and there are none
Click to expand...

*Metamorphic rock*


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass
> 
> I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology
> 
> They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you switched from a catholic religion to evolution religion,,,still a religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Only fundamentalist Christians do not
Click to expand...

Catholics by dint of birth or by dint of the NT?


----------



## fncceo

Indeependent said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> 
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse...light was enveloped by darkness.
> Light always has to emerge from darkness.
> We also don’t really concretely know what shemayim and eretz are.
Click to expand...

_
1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.   


2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.  


3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

4And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.   

5And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. _

The way I read that is that G-d created the universe originally in the dark. He provided light to all corners of the universe.  Then he created separate areas of light and dark.

Rashi's commentary complicates this by claiming the order of events in scripture aren't necessarily the order in which they happened.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
Click to expand...



did you know radiometric dating was developed to get a specific result using a rubber ruler???  

and when did I say I believed in any of those things???


it seems you are the one that believes in magic not me


----------



## rightwinger

OldLady said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
Click to expand...

Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants

All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment 

It would take generations to recover, most would not


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.
> 
> The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
Click to expand...



Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
Click to expand...



how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but heat would leave a sign, and there are none
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
Click to expand...

you need another source than wikipedia,,,we all know the are more than biased,,,


----------



## fncceo

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trust me Hollie, you don’t want to engage with folks who start talking about the “young earth “. They have no regard for scientific data. They are relatively harmless, but endlessly frustrating.
> 
> View attachment 264074
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
Click to expand...


The author of that website...

_"This is the homepage of Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory (sic)"
_
Not sure a Junior High science teacher who can't spell "History" is an authoritative source on the subject.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass
> 
> I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology
> 
> They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you switched from a catholic religion to evolution religion,,,still a religion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Only fundamentalist Christians do not
Click to expand...

doesnt mean evo isnt a religion,,


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
Click to expand...

The flood covered the land
Mt Everest is 29,000 feet


----------



## progressive hunter

fncceo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can explain in your own words how we know how old the Earth and universe is.  Yet, you believe the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that website...
> 
> _"This is the homepage of Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory (sic)"
> _
> Not sure a Junior High science teacher who can't spell "History" is an authoritative source on the subject.
Click to expand...



like they say,,,
when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,


there are other sources for the same info


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but heat would leave a sign, and there are none
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need another source than wikipedia,,,we all know the are more than biased,,,
Click to expand...

Less biased than the Bible


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
Click to expand...



today it is,,,


----------



## fncceo

progressive hunter said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that website...
> 
> _"This is the homepage of Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory (sic)"
> _
> Not sure a Junior High science teacher who can't spell "History" is an authoritative source on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> like they say,,,
> when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,
> 
> 
> there are other sources for the same info
Click to expand...


Which is strange you should choose him as your source.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but heat would leave a sign, and there are none
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need another source than wikipedia,,,we all know the are more than biased,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Less biased than the Bible
Click to expand...



when did I refer to the bible???


----------



## progressive hunter

fncceo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didnt know that RC dating doesnt go beyond 60K YRS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are referring to radiocarbon dating or RC. That is not the same thing as radiometric dating. Clearly you are out of your element here, and I have been down this road with your ilk before. It always ends the same way. That is with me shaking my head that people can be so misinformed. So consider my head shook. I really don’t give a crap if you want to go through life believing in Santa Clause, the Easter bunny, big foot, or earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The author of that website...
> 
> _"This is the homepage of Dr. Jay L. Wile, who holds an earned PhD in nuclear chemistry. He is best known as the author of award-winning elementary, junior and senior high school science courses including the Science through HisStory (sic)"
> _
> Not sure a Junior High science teacher who can't spell "History" is an authoritative source on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> like they say,,,
> when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,
> 
> 
> there are other sources for the same info
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is strange you should choose him as your source.
Click to expand...



its called google and he was at the top of a long list of articles


----------



## Dick Foster

I thought pretty much everyone had dirt floors back then but if scientists say there's evidence Noah had flooring back then, it must be true. Was it Pergo? Pergo is good stuff, it looks like wood but wears like steel.


----------



## Indeependent

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse...light was enveloped by darkness.
> Light always has to emerge from darkness.
> We also don’t really concretely know what shemayim and eretz are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
> 
> 
> 2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.
> 
> 
> 3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
> 
> 4And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.
> 
> 5And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. _
> 
> The way I read that is that G-d created the universe originally in the dark. He provided light to all corners of the universe.  Then he created separate areas of light and dark.
> 
> Rashi's commentary complicates this by claiming the order of events in scripture aren't necessarily the order in which they happened.
Click to expand...

The midrash quotes various verses in Tanach that elaborate on these verses.
The first thing that was created was a “dark” fire.
The word y’hee indicates bringing something that exists into another state, thus Or being drawn out of Choshek.
I can’t translate these words because the more I study the more I realize how bad the translations are.
Choshek is a paralyzing force.
Or is an invigorating force.
Some say that Choshek is really Or as perceived by fools.


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
Click to expand...

Are there living creatures on Mt. Everest.
Mt. Ever Rest...sounds very peaceful.


----------



## fncceo

Carl Sagan tells a story about reading the book "Worlds in Collision" by Emmanuel Velikovski.  In that book, Velikovski attributes all the events of biblical history to cosmological events.  For example, Velikovski claims that when Joshua stopped the sun in the sky, that was actually caused by a comet passing close to the Earth that slowed Earth's rotation.

Sagan remarked to an Anthropologist friend that while the Physics and Astronomy in the book were clearly impossible, he was impressed by the historical detail in the book.

His friend only laughed and said that the historical detail disagreed with every modern-day scholar, but that he was impressed by the detailed Physics and Astronomy presented in the book.


----------



## fncceo

Indeependent said:


> Are there living creatures on Mt. Everest.



There are a lot of dead ones lately.


----------



## fncceo

Indeependent said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which Genesis story did you read?  The very first thing G-d created was light.  Vegetation was created on Day 3.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse...light was enveloped by darkness.
> Light always has to emerge from darkness.
> We also don’t really concretely know what shemayim and eretz are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
> 
> 
> 2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.
> 
> 
> 3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
> 
> 4And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.
> 
> 5And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. _
> 
> The way I read that is that G-d created the universe originally in the dark. He provided light to all corners of the universe.  Then he created separate areas of light and dark.
> 
> Rashi's commentary complicates this by claiming the order of events in scripture aren't necessarily the order in which they happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The midrash quotes various verses in Tanach that elaborate on these verses.
> The first thing that was created was a “dark” fire.
> The word y’hee indicates bringing something that exists into another state, thus Or being drawn out of Choshek.
> I can’t translate these words because the more I study the more I realize how bad the translations are.
> Choshek is a paralyzing force.
> Or is an invigorating force.
> Some say that Choshek is really Or as perceived by fools.
Click to expand...


I think we can agree that light came before vegetation ... at least if we take the order as presented in scripture.


----------



## Moonglow

*Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*

*Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Dark (Choshek) was created first and it enveloped Light (Or).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He created the heavens and the earth ... they were dark, so he lit them.  The say way we created VR worlds in Blender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse...light was enveloped by darkness.
> Light always has to emerge from darkness.
> We also don’t really concretely know what shemayim and eretz are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 1. In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth.
> 
> 
> 2Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water.
> 
> 
> 3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
> 
> 4And God saw the light that it was good, and God separated between the light and between the darkness.
> 
> 5And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day. _
> 
> The way I read that is that G-d created the universe originally in the dark. He provided light to all corners of the universe.  Then he created separate areas of light and dark.
> 
> Rashi's commentary complicates this by claiming the order of events in scripture aren't necessarily the order in which they happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The midrash quotes various verses in Tanach that elaborate on these verses.
> The first thing that was created was a “dark” fire.
> The word y’hee indicates bringing something that exists into another state, thus Or being drawn out of Choshek.
> I can’t translate these words because the more I study the more I realize how bad the translations are.
> Choshek is a paralyzing force.
> Or is an invigorating force.
> Some say that Choshek is really Or as perceived by fools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we can agree that light came before vegetation ... at least if we take the order as presented in scripture.
Click to expand...

And the invasion of Earth by  the Tardigrade was now set in motion.


----------



## fncceo

Moonglow said:


> *Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*
> 
> *Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*



Forget about seasickness ... can you imagine what the bottom of that ark looked like after all those months?


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there living creatures on Mt. Everest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of dead ones lately.
Click to expand...

I bet something is feasting upon his intestines as we speak.


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*
> 
> *Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about seasickness ... can you imagine what the bottom of that ark looked like after all those months?
Click to expand...

It was easy just to slide along on the floor.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit! Every civilization with documented history has writings about a great flood.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and a great fire, and a great plague, blah blah blah....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet still your ignorant ass came to be. Thinking you're smarter than all that proceeded you and shit. Yeah, no. You're an indoctrinated ignorant dipshit, sucks to be you. Maybe you could change and grow, IDGAF. You don't make my world go 'round ary a bit.
> 
> I suppose I should be more empathetic, but you're a fuckin' fucktard, so I'm all out of fucks to give.
Click to expand...

Damn you are whiny.

No, there was no great flood, shaman gay cowboy.


----------



## dannyboys

Noah's Ark must be real. I personally have a piece of the "floor".
Bought it on EBAY for only $500.


----------



## dannyboys

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*
> 
> *Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about seasickness ... can you imagine what the bottom of that ark looked like after all those months?
Click to expand...

THe scrapings from the floor are often found in vegan main courses.


----------



## Moonglow

dannyboys said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*
> 
> *Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forget about seasickness ... can you imagine what the bottom of that ark looked like after all those months?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THe scrapings from the floor are often found in vegan main courses.
Click to expand...

That is what Noah was a vegan on the Ark...


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.
> 
> The conclusion, there was a great flood.  Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.
> 
> So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend?  Was it global?
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
Click to expand...


Interesting
So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> *Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?*
> 
> *Well that's a deep subject. While the majority believe that God flooded the Earth and not Noah it is confirmed he was on the floor of the Ark most of the time with sea sickness...*


Viscous storm and Noah had never been to sea


----------



## anynameyouwish

There is evidence of a great flood

There is NO evidence that it had anything to do with god or noah


MOST/EVERY culture/mythology in that area had stories/tales of a great flood.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously it wasn't or the flora and fauna would all have died.  It was devastating coastal flooding and it happened at different times and at different places all over the world.  Rivers flood.  Seas flooded during the glacial melt after the last ice age.  There were floods.  It is all pretty interesting.
> _Evidence suggests that more recently, about 7,600 years ago, at the end of a long dry period, it was flooded when the Mediterranean, having again become separate, broke through at the Bosporus, an event that may have scattered farmers from its shores into Europe and Asia. Some scientists have hypothesized that this event happened catastrophically and is the source of the biblical story of the Deluge._
> Black Sea | Encyclopedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
Click to expand...



is that what you read???

maybe the problem is you,,,


they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,


----------



## anynameyouwish

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
Click to expand...



yes....one time....MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO......NOT 6000


----------



## progressive hunter

anynameyouwish said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes....one time....MANY MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO......NOT 6000
Click to expand...



got any proof of that???

and I never said 6K,,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
> 
> 
> 
> you need another source than wikipedia,,,we all know the are more than biased,,,
Click to expand...

Are they biased for Metamorphic rock or against Metamorphic rock?


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noah saved the animals, he did not save plants
> 
> All vegetative matter would have been flooded with over 20,000 feet of water for months. As water receded, it would have been covered in silt and sediment
> 
> It would take generations to recover, most would not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
Click to expand...


Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
There are no human fossils on Everest


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
> 
> 
> 
> you need another source than wikipedia,,,we all know the are more than biased,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are they biased for Metamorphic rock or against Metamorphic rock?
Click to expand...

yes,,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> like they say,,,
> when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,
> 
> there are other sources for the same info


Unless the messenger is Wikipedia, then it's OK.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know all was under 20K ft of water???
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
> There are no human fossils on Everest
Click to expand...



your point???


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> like they say,,,
> when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,
> 
> there are other sources for the same info
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the messenger is Wikipedia, then it's OK.
Click to expand...



wikipedia is not a person


----------



## OldLady

This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.

_The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_





So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.

One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.

I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia


----------



## Moonglow

OldLady said:


> This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.
> 
> _The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_
> View attachment 264090
> 
> 
> So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.
> 
> One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.
> 
> I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
> Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia


The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flood covered the land
> Mt Everest is 29,000 feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
> There are no human fossils on Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your point???
Click to expand...

As my original point

The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.
> 
> _The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_
> View attachment 264090
> 
> 
> So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.
> 
> One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.
> 
> I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
> Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.
Click to expand...

Therefore, aliens must have done it


----------



## OldLady

Moonglow said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.
> 
> _The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_
> View attachment 264090
> 
> 
> So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.
> 
> One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.
> 
> I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
> Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.
Click to expand...

I'm of the mind that there have been advanced civilizations -- perhaps much more civilized than we dream -- in the past that have been entirely destroyed and buried by natural catastrophes and time.  Maybe aliens have been here, but I think much of it can be attributed to us.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m an engineer and I stopped believing when I was 12
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you weren't an engineer at 12 were you?  What made you stop?
> 
> I rebelled around then at Catholicism.  Thought it was a guilt trip, but still believed in God.  Why?  It was just a feeling.  Maybe we are just pre-destined that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was a good Catholic boy who went to Sunday School before Mass
> 
> I reached an age where I could not tell the difference between Bible stories and Witches, fairies, astrology, mythology
> 
> They all had the same logical basis to me......our beliefs are the true ones
Click to expand...


Interesting, so for you it was based on what you believed and not believed (despite going through common religious experiences).  There has to be some "faith-based" systems in there which is what I get from you.

I wanted to be Catholic, but my mom knew my school and church was 30 - 45 mins away by bus.  There was a larger Catholic church within 3 blocks of us in San Francisco.  She said if I could go every week for 1 month, then it would be okay to become baptized.  I lasted two weeks and was resigned to venial sin.  After that, I never wanted to be an altar boy nor be baptized.  My father knew the pastor of the church well and went some years back with him before I was born.  Neither put pressure on me to be baptized.

I suppose Sunday school was like the Religion class we took.  Our school was small and you advanced with practically the same students you knew since first grade.  What was easy to believe was the _sin_ part.  We knew there were both good and bad people.  It wasn't that bad doing prayer, wishing, and praying for stuff.  As for the rest like stations of the cross, rosary, the seven sacraments, mass, and so on was ritual.  Church wasn't bad even though it was small.  There were larger churches in the area which we would go for marriages and funerals.

Eventually, the sin part became no fun as you just ended up feeling guilty.  We were probably worse kids than public school kids.  We probably fooled around with sex, alcohol, drugs, and weapons before the public school kids.  The most difficult part to resolve for me was moral or social issues with the Bible during college.  I didn't understand objective moral values, but saw it more as people problems and resolution.  The Bible was too difficult to understand even then due to the people issues such as abortion, war, and sexual conduct were prominent.  God still existed and I wanted to find him, but there was too much in the way.  If I had to do the college years over again, I'd pray for him to reveal himself to me.  That wasn't taught then or I never heard of it.  Maybe I was out that day .  God was more a universal God as there were multiple religions to look at.


----------



## Moonglow

rightwinger said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.
> 
> _The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_
> View attachment 264090
> 
> 
> So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.
> 
> One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.
> 
> I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
> Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, aliens must have done it
Click to expand...

They did.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Moonglow said:


> is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.


* without years and years of time and lots of slave labor

We could easily recrete them, given these things.


----------



## Moonglow

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.
> 
> 
> 
> * without years and years of time and lots of slave labor
> 
> We could easily recrete them, given these things.
Click to expand...

Not without free beer...


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.



Most people don't think about it.  I believed Earth and the universe was billions of years old because it was taught to me.  It was taught along with how radiometric dating and how uranium decay or radioactive decay works.  The latter is testable and we observe a _constant_ decay.  What started my questioning it was if it was a fact that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, then why does the news articles about it always have to mention it.  It's a fact.  Today, they have bumped it up a skosh to 4.6 billion years old.  They will bump it up again in a few years when the James Webb telescope comes online.

That's when I started questioning it because this decay works similar to an hourglass.  An hourglass has a constant rate of sand falling down from the top to the bottom.  If we know where the sand was when it was flipped over started, then we could figure out how long time had elapsed since it was turned over.  The problem with radiometric dating is that no one knows how much sand there was when the hourglass was turned over.  Whatever the assumption was made for the presence of uranium and lead, i.e. the parent-daughter isotopes of uranium, then it would affect the results of the age.  Thus, assumptions were made over uranium decay so that it would fit a much longer time.  If you are wrong with your assumption, then the results become garbage in, garbage out.

As to your last comment about believing in dumb things, it does make a difference of what you believe.  For example, if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 or 4.6 B years old, then you may believe wrong things like rock layers bend over long-time with enough heat, pressure, and long-time.  No experiment can show that.  The experiments do show that rock breaks with enough heat and pressure over short-time.  Conclusion:  Rocks do not bend?

I was reading about Bigfoot and the FBI this morning.  I suppose if you believed in BF, then it's more evidence for your belief.  The same if you didn't believe in it.  We still do not have a definitive conclusion from the evidence.  All we have is the film of it and what type of hairs were found.  I suppose it detracts from those who thought it was an ape-type creature, but who knows what that camp will now say.


----------



## Moonglow

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't think about it.  I believed Earth and the universe was billions of years old because it was taught to me.  It was taught along with how radiometric dating and how uranium decay or radioactive decay works.  The latter is testable and we observe a _constant_ decay.  What started my questioning it was if it was a fact that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, then why does the news articles about it always have to mention it.  It's a fact.  Today, they have bumped it up a skosh to 4.6 billion years old.  They will bump it up again in a few years when the James Webb telescope comes online.
> 
> That's when I started questioning it because this decay works similar to an hourglass.  An hourglass has a constant rate of sand falling down from the top to the bottom.  If we know where the sand was when it was flipped over started, then we could figure out how long time had elapsed since it was turned over.  The problem with radiometric dating is that no one knows how much sand there was when the hourglass was turned over.  Whatever the assumption was made for the presence of uranium and lead, i.e. the parent-daughter isotopes of uranium, then it would affect the results of the age.  Thus, assumptions were made over uranium decay so that it would fit a much longer time.  If you are wrong with your assumption, then the results become garbage in, garbage out.
> 
> As to your last comment about believing in dumb things, it does make a difference of what you believe.  For example, if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 or 4.6 B years old, then you may believe wrong things like rock layers bend over long-time with enough heat, pressure, and long-time.  No experiment can show that.  The experiment do show that rock breaks with enough heat and pressure over short-time.
> 
> I was reading about Bigfoot and the FBI this morning.  I suppose if you believed in BF, then it's more evidence for your belief.  The same if you didn't believe in it.  We still do not have a definitive conclusion from the evidence.  All we have is the film of it and what type of hairs were found.  I suppose it detracts from those who thought it was an ape-type creature, but who knows what that camp will say.
Click to expand...

There is more in the world that we do not know than what we know...There may be a God but not how the humans try to describe in any of their books.


----------



## rightwinger

Moonglow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is fascinating.  Gobekli Tepe, an archeological site being excavated in Turkey, is many thousands of years older than the first "known" civilizations, 10,000-8,000 BCE, when Mesopotamian Sumer, the "first," was dated to about 4,000 - 3,500 bce.
> 
> _The tell includes two phases of use, believed to be of a social or ritual nature by site discoverer and excavator Klaus Schmidt, dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE.[4] During the first phase, belonging to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA), circles of massive T-shaped stone pillars were erected – the world's oldest known megaliths.[5]_
> View attachment 264090
> 
> 
> So there were advanced civilizations occurring five to seven millenia before what has been thought.  Some anthropologists surmise these people came from coastal areas that had been displaced by great floods because some of the animals and plants depicted on the pillars are not native to that region.
> 
> One thing that is so fascinating to me is that the giant pillars are shaped and arranged so similarly to the megaliths at Stonehenge.
> 
> I'm including one link--it is an amazing discovery.  Lots of places you can look.
> Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> The Easter Island sculptures, the pyramids of the Mayans, Aztec, Inca and Olmec, and the pyramids of Egypt along with the great walled palaces they built with massive stones with precision cutting and placement is an engineering feat modern humans have trouble recreating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Therefore, aliens must have done it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe man could have built the internet. It is much too complex for anyone to construct. 

Must have been aliens


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> today it is,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
> There are no human fossils on Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your point???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As my original point
> 
> The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life
Click to expand...

but who said the mountains were that tall then???


----------



## idb

Votto said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
Click to expand...

But now these things are accepted, right?
Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
Faith is immutable.


----------



## Indeependent

idb said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
Click to expand...

Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?


----------



## idb

Indeependent said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> If The faithful truly had Faith they wouldn't feel the need to try to argue their case with evidence.
> That's the definition of Faith...you just know it's true...case closed.
> Trying to argue science shows an absence of Faith.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
> Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about Faith...not faith.


----------



## Indeependent

idb said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good point but, imo, having faith doesn't preclude asking questions.
> 
> Also, science resonates with more people today than faith. If science might reinforce faith, it's not a bad thing to bring it up.
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
> Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about Faith...not faith.
Click to expand...

As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
That’s why so many Jews become scientists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?


Sorry, that's not faith. That's a bet based on evidence. What you are attempting is simply not valid. In fact, you are highlighting the difference between faith and evidence-based determinations.


----------



## idb

Indeependent said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
> Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about Faith...not faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
Click to expand...

As did the Muslims in the good old days.


----------



## idb

james bond said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  It shows you know diddly about it.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. It shows you know diddly about it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.


More because most jews are secular.


----------



## idb

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> More because most jews are secular.
Click to expand...

I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

idb said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> More because most jews are secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.
Click to expand...

Well, a quick check of the data shows that isn't true.


----------



## idb

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> More because most jews are secular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hear the claim all the time that stacks of scientists are religious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, a quick check of the data shows that isn't true.
Click to expand...

Oh no...now I don't know* what* to believe!!!


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting
> So you are saying that Mt Everest and other mountains rose from the earth AFTER humans had populated the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
> There are no human fossils on Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your point???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As my original point
> 
> The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but who said the mountains were that tall then???
Click to expand...


All of them?

How tall do you think they were?
You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?


----------



## james bond

Moonglow said:


> There is more in the world that we do not know than what we know...There may be a God but not how the humans try to describe in any of their books.



What we know is that God created us in his own image.  That means no aliens.  He didn't create any aliens in his image, or else he woulda told us.


----------



## rightwinger

Indeependent said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> Faith only requires...well..faith.
> They can't debate on the same basis.
> Faith can always retreat to "Well, whatever, that's what I believe".
> Science doesn't have that luxury.
> Faith has certainty.
> Science never has certainty and in fact is always searching for proof that its Laws/Theories/Hypotheses are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
> Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about Faith...not faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
Click to expand...

I thought that is why so many Jews become comedians


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?



Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.

Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> is that what you read???
> 
> maybe the problem is you,,,
> 
> 
> they do find clam fossils on everest, so at one time it wasnt a mountain,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read about plate tectonics and the formation of mountains
> There are no human fossils on Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> your point???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As my original point
> 
> The flooding had to be over 20,000 feet to cover the mountains and kill all life
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but who said the mountains were that tall then???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of them?
> 
> How tall do you think they were?
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
Click to expand...



I have no idea,,,its you that said you knew, the question is how do you know???


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.



We cannot demonstrate nor observe long periods of time, so it's not part of the scientific method.  One can't go back in time.  Long time a "faith-based" belief.  All we know is that species change over short time.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly did the rock layer bend?  Was it the flood waters or the continents scooting all over the place?
> 
> 
> 
> It was chemistry from the sediments and water as the rock layer formed and the water and land pressure bent the layer while it hardened.
> 
> Once it hardened under water, there is no way to soften it and bend it again like unbaking a cake.  The concrete will break.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not sure what 'land pressure' is but please don't bother to explain, it would just make my head hurt.
> 
> As to 'there is no way to soften it and bend it', don't you think that lava is softened rock?  Ever watch glass being blown?  Once heated enough the solid glass flows easily.
Click to expand...


My, my, my.  I destroyed your "faith-based" story of how evos think rock bends over long time to the point that you do not understand your own land pressure.

I know concrete does not bend.  It becomes brittle as it ages, cracks, and breaks off into small pieces.   

Cement hardens through a chemical reaction with water; it even hardens under water.  That's what formed the rock layer all over the globe.  The rock layer had to be liquid form when it bent thousands of years ago during the global flood.

The water pressure is enough to bend the rock layers.  Water is so dense that it would be like hitting rock if you jumped into it from high enough and a flood so devastating that it could kill all the life on earth.

The other evidence is Earth is one place where the surface is 75% water.  The evos cannot explain this.

ETA:  Your sand would have to be really heated to liquefy.  Sedimentary layers aren't like that.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> Most Catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Only fundamentalist Christians do not



Pope Francis told them it was okay to believe evolution.  One of the God's _warnings_ we got about trusting in human leaders.  It's happened before.  Remember, Pope Gregory?

Will the anti-Christ be a Pope is one hypothesis?


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> Less biased than the Bible


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t spend too much time contemplating the age or origin of the the earth and universe. However I do recognize overwhelming evidence (radiometric dating) that the age of the earth is measured in billions of years by very smart people who study it. In the last 100 years or so man’s knowledge has taken huge leaps. These knowledge leaps have ushered in the computer age and dispelled many old beliefs. But many people just like to believe dumb things, and there is really no harm in you thinking the earth is 6000 years old. Just like there is no harm in believing in Big Foot.
> 
> I believe there is a god, and I can believe there is a god while also believing the earth is billions of years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't think about it.  I believed Earth and the universe was billions of years old because it was taught to me.  It was taught along with how radiometric dating and how uranium decay or radioactive decay works.  The latter is testable and we observe a _constant_ decay.  What started my questioning it was if it was a fact that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old, then why does the news articles about it always have to mention it.  It's a fact.  Today, they have bumped it up a skosh to 4.6 billion years old.  They will bump it up again in a few years when the James Webb telescope comes online.
> 
> That's when I started questioning it because this decay works similar to an hourglass.  An hourglass has a constant rate of sand falling down from the top to the bottom.  If we know where the sand was when it was flipped over started, then we could figure out how long time had elapsed since it was turned over.  The problem with radiometric dating is that no one knows how much sand there was when the hourglass was turned over.  Whatever the assumption was made for the presence of uranium and lead, i.e. the parent-daughter isotopes of uranium, then it would affect the results of the age.  Thus, assumptions were made over uranium decay so that it would fit a much longer time.  If you are wrong with your assumption, then the results become garbage in, garbage out.
> 
> As to your last comment about believing in dumb things, it does make a difference of what you believe.  For example, if you believe that the Earth is 4.5 or 4.6 B years old, then you may believe wrong things like rock layers bend over long-time with enough heat, pressure, and long-time.  No experiment can show that.  The experiments do show that rock breaks with enough heat and pressure over short-time.  Conclusion:  Rocks do not bend?
> 
> I was reading about Bigfoot and the FBI this morning.  I suppose if you believed in BF, then it's more evidence for your belief.  The same if you didn't believe in it.  We still do not have a definitive conclusion from the evidence.  All we have is the film of it and what type of hairs were found.  I suppose it detracts from those who thought it was an ape-type creature, but who knows what that camp will now say.
Click to expand...


If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.



I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> *Metamorphic rock*



That's not much of an argument.  The claim with metamorphic rocks some or all of the minerals in the original rock are replaced, atom by atom, to form new minerals.  This is not possible, so it's a "faith-based" belief.  Else we would see an experiment on how this is done. 

Metamorphic rocks are claimed to be often squished, smeared out, and folded.  Despite these uncomfortable conditions, metamorphic rocks do not get hot enough to melt, or they would become igneous rocks -- Igneous rock - Wikipedia.


----------



## james bond

fncceo said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are there living creatures on Mt. Everest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of dead ones lately.
Click to expand...


I didn't have time to read the story.  Do they just leave the dead there like that or else lose their place in line?  Can't spare a tank of oxygen because who knows how long the wait is?


----------



## james bond

idb said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science demands proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it doesn't.  It shows you know diddly about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes it does. It shows you know diddly about it.
Click to expand...


And what proof do you have of that?


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> All of them?
> 
> How tall do you think they were?
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?



Not grew, but formed rapidly in short time.  The Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains rose up from the Earth's ocean floor and became what they are today composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Noah's Flood.  The pre-flood world was relatively flat and didn't take that much water to cover it.  Today, we have the high mountains and deep oceans because of it.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of them?
> 
> How tall do you think they were?
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not grew, but formed rapidly in short time.  The Himalayas, the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains rose up from the Earth's ocean floor and became what they are today composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Noah's Flood.  The pre-flood world was relatively flat and didn't take that much water to cover it.  Today, we have the high mountains and deep oceans because of it.
Click to expand...


That’s not true at all. The earth was not flat, or relatively flat 6,000 years ago. 

Mountains form by movement of the planet’s tectonic plates.  

The Flat Earth Society is doing you no favors.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot demonstrate nor observe long periods of time, so it's not part of the scientific method.  One can't go back in time.  Long time a "faith-based" belief.  All we know is that species change over short time.
Click to expand...


Actually, we can observe long periods of time. The Hubble telescope has allowed an unprecedented look back in time at very distant galaxies. 

How do ID’iot creationists explain how light travels?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Catholics believe in evolution
> 
> Only fundamentalist Christians do not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pope Francis told them it was okay to believe evolution.  One of the God's _warnings_ we got about trusting in human leaders.  It's happened before.  Remember, Pope Gregory?
> 
> Will the anti-Christ be a Pope is one hypothesis?
Click to expand...


Why would you trust the gods? They allowed the church to run a child abuse syndicate that continues today.

Are the gods just too busy with their administrative duties to bother?


----------



## Votto

rightwinger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Votto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try telling that to Einstein who made fun of the priest for his Big Bang theory.
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Tell that to the woman who came up with the theory that stars were mostly hydrogen and was laughed at, so much so, she later recanted even though she was right.  Problem is, in the scientific world at that time, it was believed that women were not as smart, much like the upstart priest that was laughed at for his theory that was also later proven correct.
> 
> Belief causes you to snub your nose at the truth, but it is necessary because belief helps us make sense of a world in which we have no way of proving everything.
> 
> 
> 
> But now these things are accepted, right?
> Science allows for 'belief' to change as evidence becomes available.
> Faith is immutable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like your faith that your coffee won’t kill you?
> Like your faith that you won’t get killed in a car accident?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about Faith...not faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As an example, Christianity preaches blind Faith while Judaism commands Faith through study.
> That’s why so many Jews become scientists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought that is why so many Jews become comedians
Click to expand...


Speaking of which, why do Jewish women close their eyes during sex?








So they won't see giving a man some pleasure.


----------



## WinterBorn

Here are two websites listing fatal errors of the flood geology.

Listing of Problems with Flood Geology

The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
Click to expand...


The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution

plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea

No dinosaur bones on top of Everest


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
Click to expand...

sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
Click to expand...


I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
Click to expand...


Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
Click to expand...



why would there be???

if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???


or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,

truth is no one knows what happened


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I believe there is evidence that species transform over very long periods of time? Absolutely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We cannot demonstrate nor observe long periods of time, so it's not part of the scientific method.  One can't go back in time.  Long time a "faith-based" belief.  All we know is that species change over short time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we can observe long periods of time. The Hubble telescope has allowed an unprecedented look back in time at very distant galaxies.
> 
> How do ID’iot creationists explain how light travels?
Click to expand...


See Hollie, it’s happened. I got sucked into this debate with this Christian idiot and now I am just shaking my head and wondering how a grown man can ignore facts, data and demonstrate zero common sense. Told ya, these people are endlessly annoying.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
Click to expand...




the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,

its OK we still loath you,,,


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
Click to expand...


Why are there only evidence of simple creatures on mountain tops?


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
Click to expand...


There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> My, my, my.  I destroyed your "faith-based" story of how evos think rock bends over long time to the point that you do not understand your own land pressure.
> 
> I know concrete does not bend.  It becomes brittle as it ages, cracks, and breaks off into small pieces.
> 
> Cement hardens through a chemical reaction with water; it even hardens under water.  That's what formed the rock layer all over the globe.  The rock layer had to be liquid form when it bent thousands of years ago during the global flood.
> 
> The water pressure is enough to bend the rock layers.  Water is so dense that it would be like hitting rock if you jumped into it from high enough and a flood so devastating that it could kill all the life on earth.
> 
> The other evidence is Earth is one place where the surface is 75% water.  The evos cannot explain this.
> 
> ETA:  Your sand would have to be really heated to liquefy.  Sedimentary layers aren't like that.


It is really hard to know how to answer this.  It is like you throw stuff at a wall and hope something makes sense.

Your problem comes from your 'knowing' that the Earth is young so anything you see must be the result of recent (<6,000 years) activity.  If you actually looked at the world without the blinders imposed by YEC, you'd see what geologists have learned through hundreds of years of study.  Continents move, mountains rise and are worn down and oceans are created and destroyed.  None of these can happen in a few thousand years but they are all going on today just as they always have.


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are there only evidence of simple creatures on mountain tops?
Click to expand...



well arent you an arrogant prick to call them simple creatures,,,

so far their are smarter than you,,,

truth is you nor I know or ever will,,,all you can do is speculate and all I can do is gaze in wonder at the world around us,,

on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???

I dont know do you???


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.
Click to expand...



I never said it was 6K old,,,

and whats the obsession with anal sex???


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Metamorphic rock*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not much of an argument.  The claim with metamorphic rocks some or all of the minerals in the original rock are replaced, atom by atom, to form new minerals.  This is not possible, so it's a "faith-based" belief.  Else we would see an experiment on how this is done.
> 
> Metamorphic rocks are claimed to be often squished, smeared out, and folded.  Despite these uncomfortable conditions, metamorphic rocks do not get hot enough to melt, or they would become igneous rocks -- Igneous rock - Wikipedia.
Click to expand...

"The claim with metamorphic rocks some or all of the minerals in the original rock are replaced, atom by atom, to form new minerals.  This is not possible"
What's the basis for this claim?


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???


Sure there are.  They're the animals with the feathers.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  They're the animals with the feathers.
Click to expand...



there sure are some koo koo birds here though


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> truth is no one knows what happened


You seem pretty sure of what didn't happen.  Why is that?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> 
> 
> You seem pretty sure of what didn't happen.  Why is that?
Click to expand...



its called lack of evidences mixed with crazy talk like dinos magically  turned into chickens,,,or that we all came from a rock,,,


OH and the personal attacks if I refused to believe


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  They're the animals with the feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there sure are some koo koo birds here though
Click to expand...

Actually, birds and dinos are so close anatomically, that many bird species wheren't recognized as birds until better fossils showed they had feathers.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> 
> 
> You seem pretty sure of what didn't happen.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called lack of evidences mixed with crazy talk like dinos magically  turned into chickens,,,or that we all came from a rock,,,
> 
> 
> OH and the personal attacks if I refused to believe
Click to expand...

You mean personal attacks like calling someone's idea 'crazy'?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  They're the animals with the feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there sure are some koo koo birds here though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, birds and dinos are so close anatomically, that many bird species wheren't recognized as birds until better fossils showed they had feathers.
Click to expand...



that could as easily mean a common designer as magical transformation, in fact its more likely a common designer,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> 
> 
> You seem pretty sure of what didn't happen.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> its called lack of evidences mixed with crazy talk like dinos magically  turned into chickens,,,or that we all came from a rock,,,
> 
> 
> OH and the personal attacks if I refused to believe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean personal attacks like calling someone's idea 'crazy'?
Click to expand...

the idea being crazy is not a personal attack,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
Click to expand...


So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean personal attacks like calling someone's idea 'crazy'?
> 
> 
> 
> the idea being crazy is not a personal attack,,,
Click to expand...

Good to know since I assumed being called a 'koo koo bird' was an attack on me.  Glad you cleared that up.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.
Click to expand...


if it rose rapidly then thats a possibility,,,and remember they have to get covered to become fossils
the only way to know  is to tear it down and search every rock,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean personal attacks like calling someone's idea 'crazy'?
> 
> 
> 
> the idea being crazy is not a personal attack,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good to know since I assumed being called a 'koo koo bird' was an attack on me.  Glad you cleared that up.
Click to expand...

when did I call you a koo koo bird???


----------



## rightwinger

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think Everest grew 20,000 feet in 6000 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are there only evidence of simple creatures on mountain tops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well arent you an arrogant prick to call them simple creatures,,,
> 
> so far their are smarter than you,,,
> 
> truth is you nor I know or ever will,,,all you can do is speculate and all I can do is gaze in wonder at the world around us,,
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> I dont know do you???
Click to expand...


If you don’t think you are smarter than a snail I will not disagree with you


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest






 

Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.

Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> 
> 
> Sure there are.  They're the animals with the feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there sure are some koo koo birds here though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, birds and dinos are so close anatomically, that many bird species wheren't recognized as birds until better fossils showed they had feathers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that could as easily mean a common designer as magical transformation, in fact its more likely a common designer,,,
Click to expand...


Why the need for supernatural "designers"?

Do you have any evidence of anything being supernaturally designed?


----------



## progressive hunter

rightwinger said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, in a way.  I hear many people want to get to the top of the mount that there is a line now.  What's tragic is they end up freezing to death waiting.
> 
> Mt. Everest wasn't as big before and the global flood caused it to rise to its present point now.  The evidence is the marine fossils found near the top.  Catastrophism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are there only evidence of simple creatures on mountain tops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well arent you an arrogant prick to call them simple creatures,,,
> 
> so far their are smarter than you,,,
> 
> truth is you nor I know or ever will,,,all you can do is speculate and all I can do is gaze in wonder at the world around us,,
> 
> on the other hand why are there no dinos in my yard???
> 
> I dont know do you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you don’t think you are smarter than a snail I will not disagree with you
Click to expand...



thats just a matter of perspective,,,I work my ass off and get little for it,,,while the snail just lazily meanders around doing nothing but eating and living,,,

only an arrogant human thinks that makes them smarter


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.



 

Just because you assert that the Earth is billions of years old doesn't make it so.  See ya, but it won't be in the second life.


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
Click to expand...

There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?



The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
Click to expand...


Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?

How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
Click to expand...


Utterly contrary to supportable, demonstrated science. 

You still can't explain your inability to offer a supportable comment.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
Click to expand...



because the word dinosaur wasnt invented until the 1800's,,,

before that it was dragons,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it rose rapidly then thats a possibility,,,and remember they have to get covered to become fossils
> the only way to know  is to tear it down and search every rock,,,
Click to expand...


But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it rose rapidly then thats a possibility,,,and remember they have to get covered to become fossils
> the only way to know  is to tear it down and search every rock,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
Click to expand...




OK but since only about 1% of the mountain has been searched that means nothing,,,

and since all were found on the surface it could mean a rapid rising and no chance for land animals to exist there,,,


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
Click to expand...

Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
Click to expand...


And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.

And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?


----------



## Indeependent

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry jr but it proves nothing of the sort,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it rose rapidly then thats a possibility,,,and remember they have to get covered to become fossils
> the only way to know  is to tear it down and search every rock,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
Click to expand...

At what temperature do bones dissolve?
What is the temperature of the subterranean waters?


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...



the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
Click to expand...



dont be so quick there jr,,,

Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
Click to expand...

What dinosaurs?
Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.


----------



## WinterBorn

Indeependent said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would there be???
> 
> if it was the bottom of the ocean before it rose then why would a land animal be on it???
> 
> 
> or it could be that not every rock on the mountain has been opened yet,,,
> 
> truth is no one knows what happened
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it rose to 29,000 feet above sea level before any land animal went there?    Okey dokey.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it rose rapidly then thats a possibility,,,and remember they have to get covered to become fossils
> the only way to know  is to tear it down and search every rock,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At what temperature do bones dissolve?
> What is the temperature of the subterranean waters?
Click to expand...


At about the same temperature as the invertebrates that have been found.

The temperature would depend on the depth, obviously.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
Click to expand...


There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
Click to expand...



they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
Click to expand...




DUH!!!!

and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
Click to expand...

The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> 
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
Click to expand...



sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
so do ya got a link???

because most dragon pictures say different,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
Click to expand...

I’ll give Google a shot.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> 
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
Click to expand...


The History of Dragons in Art | Muddy Colors


----------



## james bond

Hollie said:


> Actually, we can observe long periods of time. The Hubble telescope has allowed an unprecedented look back in time at very distant galaxies.
> 
> How do ID’iot creationists explain how light travels?



It just so happens I worked for the company that built the Hubble telescope.  My office was right next to it for a time according to rumors.  What is of significance in this the Hubble-Lemaitre law, especially the Hubble constant.

Objects observed in deep space—extragalactic space, 10 megaparsecs (Mpc) or more—are found to have a redshift, interpreted as a relative velocity away from Earth;
This Doppler shift-measured velocity of various galaxies receding from the Earth is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth for galaxies up to a few hundred megaparsecs away.
Hubble's law - Wikipedia

The short answer w/o the math is that this so-called constant has changed over time.  No one knows it's exactness.  Thus, what you claim we are seeing via Hubble's telescope as long time due to redshifts may not be correct.  A different Hubble constant also allows for a young universe.  Note, I'm not arguing the universe isn't expanding.  It is still expanding since the beginning.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The History of Dragons in Art | Muddy Colors
Click to expand...


Google “Dragons in the Bible”...
The word “Tah-nihm” (Tah-née-nihm plural), which means Hugh fish, is mistranslated as dragon.

So much for the veracity of the King James Version.


----------



## Indeependent

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> 
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
Click to expand...


I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
And yes, I speak Hebrew.
That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the words dinosaur didnt exist when they wrote it,,,
> 
> 
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The History of Dragons in Art | Muddy Colors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google “Dragons in the Bible”...
> The word “Tah-nihm” (Tah-née-nihm plural), which means Hugh fish, is mistranslated as dragon.
> 
> So much for the veracity of the King James Version.
Click to expand...



what no link???


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The History of Dragons in Art | Muddy Colors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google “Dragons in the Bible”...
> The word “Tah-nihm” (Tah-née-nihm plural), which means Hugh fish, is mistranslated as dragon.
> 
> So much for the veracity of the King James Version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what no link???
Click to expand...

Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre


----------



## Hollie

Indeependent said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
Click to expand...


Science is not unlike forensics in that it can examine evidence recreate events in the past. So yes, the various fields of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc, actually can tell us about the earth 6,000 years ago. 


Taking that a step further, nobody has ever been able to say with any degree of certainty that _any_ words in _any_ of the variously asserted holy texts are of a Divine origin. I accept that the scribes and translators can make errors, and in fact did. I dont see any divine intervention in the Torah, KJV or the NIV nor _any_ translation. I acknowledge that one of many supreme beings allowed his "word" to be corrupted by the fallibility of man, and I know you will not see the fallacy of proffering such an argument.


----------



## Indeependent

Hollie said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you any evidence of an Ark, dinosaurs on an Ark, a global flood 6,000 years ago?
> 
> How do you explain your complete lack of supportable comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Noach May have chopped up the ark to build homes.
> There is not one mention of dinosaurs in the Torah.
> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Science is not unlike forensics in that it can examine evidence recreate events in the past. So yes, the various fields of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc, actually can tell us about the earth 6,000 years ago.
> 
> 
> Taking that a step further, nobody has ever been able to say with any degree of certainty that _any_ words in _any_ of the variously asserted holy texts are of a Divine origin. I accept that the scribes and translators can make errors, and in fact did. I dont see any divine intervention in the Torah, KJV or the NIV nor _any_ translation. I acknowledge that one of many supreme beings allowed his "word" to be corrupted by the fallibility of man, and I know you will not see the fallacy of proffering such an argument.
Click to expand...

Excellent...
Find me a copy of a Torah scroll anywhere on earth that doesn’t exactly duplicate every other scroll that is used even in a Reformed Synagogue.
I’ll wait.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> What dinosaurs?
> Apparently, their existence was not relevant enough to mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
Click to expand...



are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> It is really hard to know how to answer this. It is like you throw stuff at a wall and hope something makes sense.
> 
> Your problem comes from your 'knowing' that the Earth is young so anything you see must be the result of recent (<6,000 years) activity. If you actually looked at the world without the blinders imposed by YEC, you'd see what geologists have learned through hundreds of years of study. Continents move, mountains rise and are worn down and oceans are created and destroyed. None of these can happen in a few thousand years but they are all going on today just as they always have.



It's impossible to answer for you because the problem is you can't demonstrate what happens in millions of years, even one million year.  But that's beside the point when I can demonstrate how Portland cement can harden under water.  I also can show that this cement can bend and fold by running water.  I can show an older driveway with it to show the concrete becomes brittle, has developed cracks in it, and breaks into smaller rocks.  I can show that it doesn't bend or fold as you claim, but it shows what I claim.

All you have to show is the cement liquefying again, but that's impossible as it's like unbaking a cake.  This chemical reaction cannot be reversed.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> they did use the word dragons and behemoth though,,,
> 
> 
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
Click to expand...

You made a claim.
Back it up.
I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you you even begin to believe that Bigfoot could exist, then you are beyond hope. There is there is no Bigfoot and anybody who hasn’t come to that conclusion should never be trusted. The fact that you can’t come to that conclusion tells me all I need to know. You’re not a scientific thinker, and that’s ok. You are somebody who wants to believe, but science is not about wanting to believe. It’s about facts, data, research, testing and skepticism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was 6K old,,,
> 
> and whats the obsession with anal sex???
Click to expand...


Ask Jesus, apparently he and John were into it.
Was Jesus gay? Probably | Paul Oestreicher
The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. 

So how old do you believe the earth to be?


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Behemoth is not a land dweller.
> The word for dragon is believed to be an alligator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
Click to expand...



so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hadn't given BF or Sasquatch much thought.  What caught my eye was the FBI was involved and so read the story.  Some people found additional evidence in the past and the FBI had analyzed it.  That was the story.  For you to jump to such silly conclusions about me tells me you aren't scientific nor understand collecting the evidence.  For example, you recognize overwhelming evidence of long time from radiometric dating, but do not present any.  Instead, you explain it by reasoning what authority and smarter people than you have told you.  That doesn't give me much confidence in your argument because I am smarter than you and can argue against what your authority and smarter people have told you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was 6K old,,,
> 
> and whats the obsession with anal sex???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask Jesus, apparently he and John were into it.
> Was Jesus gay? Probably | Paul Oestreicher
> The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.
> 
> So how old do you believe the earth to be?
Click to expand...




I dont know how old it is and neither do you or any one else,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry if I dont take your word for it,,
> so do ya got a link???
> 
> because most dragon pictures say different,
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
Click to expand...

A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
The NT, maybe.
But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’ll give Google a shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
Click to expand...



so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???

and when did I claim jewish scripture???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why, if all the mountains rose during or after the Great Flood, are there no higher animals in the rock formations on Everest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
Click to expand...


So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?

Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> The topology was different in the past before Noah's Flood.  The mountains rose from the bottom of the sea floor and also there was an equal, but separate opposite force, to create the depth of oceans we have today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
Click to expand...

thats not what I said,,,

there are no fossils that show transition,,,

transition is a speculation placed on them by people that just cant know for sure,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use Psalms 74 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> as a reference as it’s the best in terms of side by side original Hebrew and supposed English interpretation.
> And yes, I speak Hebrew.
> That’s why I never saw the work Dragon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
Click to expand...

If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
I don’t subscribe to such.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you wanting me to go through every page of this for you???
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
Click to expand...

why do you limit it to just those???

there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the mountains rose so fast that there were no terrestrial animals fossilized?   Interesting.
> 
> And, despite much exploration and study of the oceans, not one single terrestrial animal fossil has been found in the ocean depths?   I understand that the areas are remote and hard to study.  But not one fossilized bone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats not what I said,,,
> 
> there are no fossils that show transition,,,
> 
> transition is a speculation placed on them by people that just cant know for sure,,,
Click to expand...


I said that no fossils of large terrestrial animals had even been found in the ocean depths.  To which you replied with a link about a flooded cave.  I said there was a difference between a flooded cave and the ocean.    YOur reply was "since when has the entire ocean been excavated".   What else could you have meant but that there may be large terrestrial fossils in the strata below the oceans, but we just haven't found them.

You ridicule evolution because of a lack of evidence, and yet the Great Flood mythology depends on the same lack of evidence.


----------



## rightwinger

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
Click to expand...

Wow
Quite a theory

It shows no understanding of evolutionary theory. No, we did not descend from monkeys. We are evolving, but the process is so slow, it goes unnoticed

I have seen Jurassic Park. I would love to have seen Noah’s dinosaurs on the Ark.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> You made a claim.
> Back it up.
> I supplied the lie and the ability to expose it.
> Now you’re allowing your ideology to make you intellectually dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
Click to expand...

Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow
> Quite a theory
> 
> It shows no understanding of evolutionary theory. No, we did not descend from monkeys. We are evolving, but the process is so slow, it goes unnoticed
> 
> I have seen Jurassic Park. I would love to have seen Noah’s dinosaurs on the Ark.
Click to expand...

I would have loved to see the Beatles in the Ark.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> dont be so quick there jr,,,
> 
> Divers discover underwater graveyard of extinct giants - CNN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats not what I said,,,
> 
> there are no fossils that show transition,,,
> 
> transition is a speculation placed on them by people that just cant know for sure,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that no fossils of large terrestrial animals had even been found in the ocean depths.  To which you replied with a link about a flooded cave.  I said there was a difference between a flooded cave and the ocean.    YOur reply was "since when has the entire ocean been excavated".   What else could you have meant but that there may be large terrestrial fossils in the strata below the oceans, but we just haven't found them.
> 
> You ridicule evolution because of a lack of evidence, and yet the Great Flood mythology depends on the same lack of evidence.
Click to expand...


who are you to tell me what I meant???

and you are correct,,
but those that go by the bible version dont teach it as fact using tax payer money and openly say its based on faith,,,

as for me its just at this point I dont know and am still looking for the truth


----------



## WinterBorn

The Great Flood relies on two phenomenon to be possible.    First, the huge water vapor canopy.  And second, that there were huge reservoirs of water under the ground.

There is not one shred of evidence for either.    ID'ers mock evolution because they say there are gaps in the knowledge.   The Great Flood myth absolutely depends on 2 things that have no evidence at all.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a difference between oceans and flooded caves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats not what I said,,,
> 
> there are no fossils that show transition,,,
> 
> transition is a speculation placed on them by people that just cant know for sure,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that no fossils of large terrestrial animals had even been found in the ocean depths.  To which you replied with a link about a flooded cave.  I said there was a difference between a flooded cave and the ocean.    YOur reply was "since when has the entire ocean been excavated".   What else could you have meant but that there may be large terrestrial fossils in the strata below the oceans, but we just haven't found them.
> 
> You ridicule evolution because of a lack of evidence, and yet the Great Flood mythology depends on the same lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who are you to tell me what I meant???
> 
> and you are correct,,
> but those that go by the bible version dont teach it as fact using tax payer money and openly say its based on faith,,,
> 
> as for me its just at this point I dont know and am still looking for the truth
Click to expand...


If I am mistaken about what you meant, feel free to clarify it.   I explained what we said, and my version seems sound.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> 
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
Click to expand...



no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,

and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> DUH!!!!
> 
> and since when has the entire ocean been excavated???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool.    Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats not what I said,,,
> 
> there are no fossils that show transition,,,
> 
> transition is a speculation placed on them by people that just cant know for sure,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that no fossils of large terrestrial animals had even been found in the ocean depths.  To which you replied with a link about a flooded cave.  I said there was a difference between a flooded cave and the ocean.    YOur reply was "since when has the entire ocean been excavated".   What else could you have meant but that there may be large terrestrial fossils in the strata below the oceans, but we just haven't found them.
> 
> You ridicule evolution because of a lack of evidence, and yet the Great Flood mythology depends on the same lack of evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who are you to tell me what I meant???
> 
> and you are correct,,
> but those that go by the bible version dont teach it as fact using tax payer money and openly say its based on faith,,,
> 
> as for me its just at this point I dont know and am still looking for the truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am mistaken about what you meant, feel free to clarify it.   I explained what we said, and my version seems sound.
Click to expand...



I did tell you,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> The Great Flood relies on two phenomenon to be possible.    First, the huge water vapor canopy.  And second, that there were huge reservoirs of water under the ground.
> 
> There is not one shred of evidence for either.    ID'ers mock evolution because they say there are gaps in the knowledge.   The Great Flood myth absolutely depends on 2 things that have no evidence at all.


Massive 'ocean' discovered towards Earth's core


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
Click to expand...

Which verse mentions legs?
Stingrays have tails.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the word dragon and behemoth are not in the bible???
> 
> 
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
Click to expand...



that was your claim,,,I just broadened the discussion for deeper look into the topic,,,

the truth is I dont like using the bible exclusively and more so as a writtings of the time and not for the god part,,,

its easier to leave god out of it and go with facts


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> 
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
Click to expand...



eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,


'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> A behemoth (large fish) is not a dragon (mythical flying creature).
> There is no mention of dragons in Jewish Scripture.
> The NT, maybe.
> But the NT is filled with Greek and Roman myth culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> and when did I claim jewish scripture???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that was your claim,,,I just broadened the discussion for deeper look into the topic,,,
> 
> the truth is I dont like using the bible exclusively and more so as a writtings of the time and not for the god part,,,
> 
> its easier to leave god out of it and go with facts
Click to expand...

You are correct; I was addressing “Bond, James Bond”, and lost track of who I was responding to.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
Click to expand...

Which verse is that?


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse is that?
Click to expand...




if you dont know it explains the problem,,,

my mistake for thinking you were coming from a place of knowledge,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you subscribe to the mistranslation of a word based on Roman Catholic Church paintings, fine.
> I don’t subscribe to such.
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
Click to expand...

Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
Job 40:15...
Oy!  Another botched translation.
A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
It’s a very common word.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> when did I call you a koo koo bird???


Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you dont know it explains the problem,,,
> 
> my mistake for thinking you were coming from a place of knowledge,,,
Click to expand...

Question answered.
Ad hominems never win arguments.
Especially when preferred by a supposed “Progressive Hunter”.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
Click to expand...



didnt you say it was a fish???


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you dont know it explains the problem,,,
> 
> my mistake for thinking you were coming from a place of knowledge,,,
Click to expand...

By the way, Job is one of the most difficult books to master, but it obliterates atheists.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I call you a koo koo bird???
> 
> 
> 
> Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.
Click to expand...




alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I call you a koo koo bird???
> 
> 
> 
> Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.
Click to expand...



yes you are,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
Click to expand...

A “Tah-Nihn” is a fish, a “B-Hay-Mah” is an undomesticated land animal.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you dont know it explains the problem,,,
> 
> my mistake for thinking you were coming from a place of knowledge,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way, Job is one of the most difficult books to master, but it obliterates atheists.
Click to expand...



wouldnt know because I never tried,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> 
> possibly,,,
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
Click to expand...


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
Click to expand...

I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
Completely dishonest translation.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you limit it to just those???
> 
> there are others all over the world from most ancient cultures,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
Click to expand...



possibly,, but do an ox or bull have a tail as a cedar???

not that I've ever seen


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
Click to expand...

in your opinion,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
> If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> possibly,, but do an ox or bull have a tail as a cedar???
> 
> not that I've ever seen
Click to expand...

Read the verse carefully...
It says “*like* a cedar”.
It’s a metaphor.
Cedar trees are used all over the Bible to indicate pride and/or strength.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your opinion,,,
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
There are sites that translate the words interactively.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it was your claim that was about the bible,,,I just pointed out that the word dino didnt exist and they did use dragon and behemoth in its place,,,
> 
> and since when did fish have legs and a tail like a cedar???
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> possibly,, but do an ox or bull have a tail as a cedar???
> 
> not that I've ever seen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse carefully...
> It says “*like* a cedar”.
> It’s a metaphor.
> Cedar trees are used all over the Bible to indicate pride and/or strength.
Click to expand...



if you say so,,,

so it means his tail is proud??? because if it means strength that goes to prove a massive tail and an ox or bulls tail surly is not strong


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> 
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
Click to expand...



I didnt say you did,,,
it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,

this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which verse mentions legs?
> Stingrays have tails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> possibly,, but do an ox or bull have a tail as a cedar???
> 
> not that I've ever seen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse carefully...
> It says “*like* a cedar”.
> It’s a metaphor.
> Cedar trees are used all over the Bible to indicate pride and/or strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> so it means his tail is proud??? because if it means strength that goes to prove a massive tail and an ox or bulls tail surly is not strong
Click to expand...

Have you ever met a wild ox?
The wild ox acts as though it is indestructible.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
Click to expand...

It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> eats grass like an ox so its seems grass eaters need to get to the grass to eat it,,,so its a speculation,,,
> 
> 
> 'and is its tail like a cedar??? and is it considered a fish??
> 
> 
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> possibly,, but do an ox or bull have a tail as a cedar???
> 
> not that I've ever seen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the verse carefully...
> It says “*like* a cedar”.
> It’s a metaphor.
> Cedar trees are used all over the Bible to indicate pride and/or strength.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> so it means his tail is proud??? because if it means strength that goes to prove a massive tail and an ox or bulls tail surly is not strong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever met a wild ox?
> The wild ox acts as though it is indestructible.
Click to expand...




not its tail,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> 
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
Click to expand...

youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Job 40 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre
> Job 40:15...
> Oy!  Another botched translation.
> A “b-hay-mah” is a wild animal, such as a bull or wild ox.
> It’s a very common word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didnt you say it was a fish???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
Click to expand...

Almost any document, scientific or otherwise, should be read in the original language because everyone has an agenda.


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
Click to expand...

Not seriously.
I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
Click to expand...




that explains a lot,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn’t dare insert my opinion on the word of God.
> There are sites that translate the words interactively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
Click to expand...

Yes.
Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.


----------



## Dick Foster

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> like they say,,,
> when you cant debunk the message attack the messenger,,,
> 
> there are other sources for the same info
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the messenger is Wikipedia, then it's OK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wikipedia is not a person
Click to expand...


Wikipedia is many people. Any idiot out there can add to or edit it. It's the they in they said so you can't really count on it as they are more often than not idiots. Take a look around you, it's fashionable now for they to cover themselves in idiotic tattoos and that just isn't very smart. They can go screw themselves and they often do.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didnt say you did,,,
> it was your claim of bad translation I was refering,,,
> 
> this is why I try and not use the bible for anything other than writtings of the times and leave god out of it on this topic,,,
> 
> 
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
Click to expand...



thats usually the next step,,,

saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,

but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s just that dragons are so...Godzilla.
> It’s almost comical to use them in a discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats usually the next step,,,
> 
> saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,
> 
> but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,
Click to expand...

You have to relax.
Take a deep breath and see the humor in how translations are mangled over the centuries to fill an agenda.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> youre seriously going to bring godzilla into this discussion???
> 
> 
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats usually the next step,,,
> 
> saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,
> 
> but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to relax.
> Take a deep breath and see the humor in how translations are mangled over the centuries to fill an agenda.
Click to expand...



if you say so,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not seriously.
> I find dragons to be as viable as Godzilla.
> Though Gidrah, Three Headed Monster, has always been way cooler in my opnion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats usually the next step,,,
> 
> saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,
> 
> but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to relax.
> Take a deep breath and see the humor in how translations are mangled over the centuries to fill an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
Click to expand...

It’s an observation.
CNN, MSNBC and Fox are simply the historians of today; no different than the historians of yesterday.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> that explains a lot,,,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> thats usually the next step,,,
> 
> saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,
> 
> but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to relax.
> Take a deep breath and see the humor in how translations are mangled over the centuries to fill an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an observation.
> CNN, MSNBC and Fox are simply the historians of today; no different than the historians of yesterday.
Click to expand...



wouldnt know since I never watch them,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> Although I do agree that people without higher education gives them the authority to come to an authoritative opinion is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats usually the next step,,,
> 
> saying you arent educated enough for the discussion,,,
> 
> but its you bringing godzilla into it to prove your point,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to relax.
> Take a deep breath and see the humor in how translations are mangled over the centuries to fill an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s an observation.
> CNN, MSNBC and Fox are simply the historians of today; no different than the historians of yesterday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wouldnt know since I never watch them,,,
Click to expand...

Good for you!
I need a good chuckle once in a while.


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.



Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.



Would you live next to a TRex?  I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Neither you nor I have the educational background to know anything about what happened 6,000 years ago.


Then who does?


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
Click to expand...

I don’t know.
Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
It’s a speculative science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.


Not accurate.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool. Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).



Come now.  It's your claim and job to show transitions, but your side hasn't produced any.  It means there wasn't any transition.  Else if you and your common ancestor theory is right, then you wouldn't hesitate to show us the transitions and beat it over our heads.  You tried to do so with human fossils haha.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> It's your claim and job to show transitions, but your side hasn't produced any.


Shameless, stupid lie. The fossil record is full of very obviois "transitional" fossils by any definition of the term, and thats true despite only collecting fossils of .01% of the species which have very existed.

You YEC frauds are the most shameless liars i have ever met.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> There is not one shred of evidence for either. ID'ers mock evolution because they say there are gaps in the knowledge. The Great Flood myth absolutely depends on 2 things that have no evidence at all.




Fail.


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.



So, are you saying the Torah didn't say we had any what we call "dinosaurs" today in the past?

What does the Torah call the fossil or does it deny it?   I don't think secular/atheist scientists calls them skeletons or else their thinking would be along the like of creation scientists.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shameless, stupid lie. The fossil record is full of very obviois "transitional" fossils by any definition of the term, and thats true despite only collecting fossils of .01% of the species which have very existed.



Yet, you provide no examples, but go right into your ad hominem fallacies.  What a loser you are.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

progressive hunter said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am done with this debate. The earth is billions of years old, and anybody who doesn’t think so is a Christian idiot. See ya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was 6K old,,,
> 
> and whats the obsession with anal sex???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask Jesus, apparently he and John were into it.
> Was Jesus gay? Probably | Paul Oestreicher
> The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.
> 
> So how old do you believe the earth to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know how old it is and neither do you or any one else,,,
Click to expand...


I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.


----------



## james bond

rightwinger said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow
> Quite a theory
> 
> It shows no understanding of evolutionary theory. No, we did not descend from monkeys. We are evolving, but the process is so slow, it goes unnoticed
> 
> I have seen Jurassic Park. I would love to have seen Noah’s dinosaurs on the Ark.
Click to expand...


Haha.  Who understands evo theory?  There is no evolution; it's based on fake science.

Evolution's common descent theory states that humans descended from monkeys.  Else you are admitting that monkeys could not have evolved to the point of becoming bipedal.  It starts with tailed monkeys which became tailless ones.  There is no fossil evidence of this.  This does not happen today.  Yet, the secular/atheist scientists claim humans still have vestigial organs from their _evolution_.


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.



I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> You are correct; I was addressing “Bond, James Bond”, and lost track of who I was responding to.



>>Your claim specifically targeted the Bible.
If you claimed “cultures”, I wouldn’t have contested.<<

IIRC, I was asking if the Torah discusses today's "dinosaurs" found in the past?  What does it call them if they do discuss?


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you saying the Torah didn't say we had any what we call "dinosaurs" today in the past?
> 
> What does the Torah call the fossil or does it deny it?   I don't think secular/atheist scientists calls them skeletons or else their thinking would be along the like of creation scientists.
Click to expand...

The Torah doesn’t mention what doesn’t impact the future of mankind.
There is one theory that the “Giants” mentioned as one of the the causes for the flood needed Dinosaurs to travel because they couldn’t use ordinary animals.
Once the flood killed off the giants, the dinosaurs were no longer needed.
Note that this is from a commentary from a few hundred years ago.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I call you a koo koo bird???
> 
> 
> 
> Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.
Click to expand...


Can you link post #272?  I'd like to read it.


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
Click to expand...

Mankind is 6,000 years old.
For sure, Adam was not created as a baby but as a mature adult.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mankind is 6,000 years old.
> For sure, Adam was not created as a baby but as a mature adult.
Click to expand...

SMDH


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> I now understand your confusion, the KJV translate both “Tah-Nihn” and “B-Hay-Mah” as Behemoth.
> Completely dishonest translation.



So what do you think was described 
'“Behold, Behemoth,
which I made as I made you;
he eats pgrass like an ox.

Behold, his strength in his loins,
and his power in the muscles of his belly.

He makes his tail stiff like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like bars of iron." Job 40:15-18?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I call you a koo koo bird???
> 
> 
> 
> Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link post #272?  I'd like to read it.
Click to expand...

Umm... The link is there, at least for me.  If not try: Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
Click to expand...


We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?  

I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> when did I call you a koo koo bird???
> 
> 
> 
> Post #272.  Of course I may be just overly sensitive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you link post #272?  I'd like to read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... The link is there, at least for me.  If not try: Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?
Click to expand...


Both of you links got to the last page or p. 20 now.  What page is it on?


----------



## Indeependent

james bond said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?
> 
> I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?
Click to expand...

The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
Torah denied by science?
Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.


----------



## progressive hunter

BuckToothMoron said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the poor little bigot cant prove anything so he runs to the bathroom for some personal time,,,
> 
> its OK we still loath you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is more evidence that Jesus took it in the ass from the 12 disciples (and liked it) than the earth is 6000 years old.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was 6K old,,,
> 
> and whats the obsession with anal sex???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask Jesus, apparently he and John were into it.
> Was Jesus gay? Probably | Paul Oestreicher
> The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong.
> 
> So how old do you believe the earth to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know how old it is and neither do you or any one else,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
Click to expand...



asked and answered,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?
> 
> I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
> Torah denied by science?
> Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
> The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
> For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
> The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
> But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.
Click to expand...



if you say so,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?
> 
> I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
> Torah denied by science?
> Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
> The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
> For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
> The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
> But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
Click to expand...

I studied the NT for a few years...so many devils.


----------



## progressive hunter

Indeependent said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying the "dinosaurs" as we know them today didn't exist?  We got plenty of fossils.  What do _you_ want to call them in the past?
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?
> 
> I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
> Torah denied by science?
> Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
> The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
> For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
> The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
> But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I studied the NT for a few years...so many devils.
Click to expand...



yes we all know about the democrats and republicans,,,


----------



## Indeependent

progressive hunter said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t know.
> Every time they find a new bone they change what the entire skeleton “looked” like.
> It’s a speculative science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing today's dinosaurs whose fossils have been found and put together.  The Torah does not mention these creatures?  So, the Torah is denied by science?
> 
> I'm sure Job knew about dragons and behemoths, but the Torah doesn't describe it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
> Torah denied by science?
> Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
> The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
> For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
> The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
> But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if you say so,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I studied the NT for a few years...so many devils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes we all know about the democrats and republicans,,,
Click to expand...

You mean the group that curses each other in front of cameras and then negotiates in the back rooms so that they all benefit from whatever garbage legislation they’re going to pass?


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> Both of you links got to the last page or p. 20 now.  What page is it on?


Weird??? It works OK for me.  It is on pg 28.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.


Perfect illustration of the delusional, confused mind of a YEC fraud....


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you live next to a TRex?  I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil.
Click to expand...


That is your answer?    A T-Rex ran them all away?   lol


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you live next to a TRex?  I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your answer?    A T-Rex ran them all away?   lol
Click to expand...

how does a t-rex chase away a fossil???


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, unless the entire ocean is excavated, your claim is that those fossil could possibly exist?
> 
> Cool. Then when you ask people who believe in evolution where the fossils are that show transitions, refer back to this comment (and include the entire surface of the Earth).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come now.  It's your claim and job to show transitions, but your side hasn't produced any.  It means there wasn't any transition.  Else if you and your common ancestor theory is right, then you wouldn't hesitate to show us the transitions and beat it over our heads.  You tried to do so with human fossils haha.
Click to expand...


Has the entire earth been excavated?   lmao


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there have been thousands of fossils found, and not one single higher animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you live next to a TRex?  I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your answer?    A T-Rex ran them all away?   lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how does a t-rex chase away a fossil???
Click to expand...


Did I say that?  Or did I mock the idea that his answer is that a T-Rex chased away all the other animals?


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow
> Quite a theory
> 
> It shows no understanding of evolutionary theory. No, we did not descend from monkeys. We are evolving, but the process is so slow, it goes unnoticed
> 
> I have seen Jurassic Park. I would love to have seen Noah’s dinosaurs on the Ark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  Who understands evo theory?  There is no evolution; it's based on fake science.
> 
> Evolution's common descent theory states that humans descended from monkeys.  Else you are admitting that monkeys could not have evolved to the point of becoming bipedal.  It starts with tailed monkeys which became tailless ones.  There is no fossil evidence of this.  This does not happen today.  Yet, the secular/atheist scientists claim humans still have vestigial organs from their _evolution_.
Click to expand...


There is more evidence of transitions than there is that a huge volume of water was locked under the surface until god let it loose.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The presence of marine fossils at the top of Everest proves Evolution
> 
> plate tectonics forced those mountain ranges up at a time there were only simple simple creatures at the bottom of the sea
> 
> No dinosaur bones on top of Everest
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264261
> 
> Plate tectonics shows that the continental drift theory and creation scientists Alfred Wegener was correct.  It means the present isn't the key to the past.  If it was, then we'd be seeing today's monkeys becoming bipedal and human.  That doesn't happen, so it shows that they weren't bipedal in the past.
> 
> Dinosaurs were part of Noah's Ark, so they were part of those that survived .  As for the rest, the global flood theory shows dinosaurs died moving to a common location.  It explains why they are found together in dinosaur graveyards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow
> Quite a theory
> 
> It shows no understanding of evolutionary theory. No, we did not descend from monkeys. We are evolving, but the process is so slow, it goes unnoticed
> 
> I have seen Jurassic Park. I would love to have seen Noah’s dinosaurs on the Ark.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Haha.  Who understands evo theory?  There is no evolution; it's based on fake science.
> 
> Evolution's common descent theory states that humans descended from monkeys.  Else you are admitting that monkeys could not have evolved to the point of becoming bipedal.  It starts with tailed monkeys which became tailless ones.  There is no fossil evidence of this.  This does not happen today.  Yet, the secular/atheist scientists claim humans still have vestigial organs from their _evolution_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is more evidence of transitions than there is that a huge volume of water was locked under the surface until god let it loose.
Click to expand...

well there is zero evidence of transition and there are scientific facts that say water under the surface,,,

god is irrelevant,,,


----------



## Likkmee

The floor, and total structure was of "gopher wood". Nobody has come up with it....I'll buy some if you have it


----------



## Capri

BuckToothMoron said:


> The earth is billions of years old





BuckToothMoron said:


> now I am just shaking my head and wondering how a grown man can ignore facts, data and demonstrate zero common sense.


The age of Earth depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. On Earth, the planet is about 2.75 billion years old.
Use the chi ratio to follow back to the observed center of the universe and Earth is about 6000 years old.
Those are facts supported by data.



Indeependent said:


> There is no verse mentioning dinosaurs.


There's no verse mentioning raspberries. Raspberries don't exist. 



Indeependent said:


> Find me a copy of a Torah scroll anywhere on earth that doesn’t exactly duplicate every other scroll


You may want to read "Revelation Restored" by David Halivni. It discusses a theory of how the earliest Old Testament books were lost and recreated.



Hollie said:


> Do you have any evidence of anything being supernaturally designed?


You may want to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder. It contains ample evidence of supernatural design.



WinterBorn said:


> There is more evidence of transitions


There's no evidence of transitions in the fossil record except for one fossil, the one that's pictured in every single biology text with a caption saying it's "an example" of a transitional form; it's actual not an example but the only example. The fossil record shows rapid (in geological terms) destruction of life forms followed by rapid creation of different life forms.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> The age of Earth depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. On Earth, the planet is about 2.75 billion years old.
> Use the chi ratio to follow back to the observed center of the universe and Earth is about 6000 years old.
> Those are facts supported by data.


That's all total nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, no matter who measures it. And there is no "center of the universe"...where are you getting this crap....?


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> You may want to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder. It contains ample evidence of supernatural design.



Great. Since there is ample evidence for supernatural design, you must have a few examples you can share. 

You have a few examples, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> You may want to read "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder. It contains ample evidence of supernatural design.


No it doesn't. 



Capri said:


> There's no evidence of transitions in the fossil record except for one fossil, the one that's pi


Shameless lie....


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> The age of Earth depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. On Earth, the planet is about 2.75 billion years old.
> Use the chi ratio to follow back to the observed center of the universe and Earth is about 6000 years old.
> Those are facts supported by data.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all total nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, no matter who measures it. And there is no "center of the universe"...where are you getting this crap....?
Click to expand...

4.54 billion my ass,,,


----------



## james bond

Indeependent said:


> The fossils we have are bones, not skeletons.
> Torah denied by science?
> Do you realize how many Observant Jews are scientists and Nobel Winners.
> The lack of mention simply indicates lack of importance to eternity.
> For instance, the Torah does not mention Noah’s height but mentions Moshe’s height from which we can deduce Aaron’s height due to Aaron needing a step ladder to light the menorah in the Holy of Holies.
> The word for dragon is actually Large Fish, not Dragon.
> But Dragons sounds scarier and Romans loved it when people were superstitious and scared.



Ok, but you said skeletons which is different.

So science backs up the Torah.  If science backs up Torah, then it should describe a dragon or behemoth like creature such as a brachiasaur in Job.  I think you are thinking of the mythological dragons.  A dragon would be the word for what we call dinosaur today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> The age of Earth depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. On Earth, the planet is about 2.75 billion years old.
> Use the chi ratio to follow back to the observed center of the universe and Earth is about 6000 years old.
> Those are facts supported by data.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all total nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, no matter who measures it. And there is no "center of the universe"...where are you getting this crap....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4.54 billion my ass,,,
Click to expand...

Well, the cool thing about empirical knowledge is that it is quite independent of your embarrassing, childish voodoo fetishes...


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> The age of Earth depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. On Earth, the planet is about 2.75 billion years old.
> Use the chi ratio to follow back to the observed center of the universe and Earth is about 6000 years old.
> Those are facts supported by data.
> 
> 
> 
> That's all total nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, no matter who measures it. And there is no "center of the universe"...where are you getting this crap....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4.54 billion my ass,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the cool thing about empirical knowledge is that it is quite independent of your embarrassing, childish voodoo fetishes...
Click to expand...

I sure would like to talk to the guy that made that ruler,,,


----------



## percysunshine

Why does this stuff bother people?

Imagine the 2004 boxing day tsunami before people knew what caused tsunamis.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
Click to expand...


Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> There's no evidence of transitions in the fossil record except for one fossil, the one that's pictured in every single biology text with a caption saying it's "an example" of a transitional form; it's actual not an example but the only example. The fossil record shows rapid (in geological terms) destruction of life forms followed by rapid creation of different life forms.



There is a wealth of evidence for transitional fossils. You won’t find the data at any Christian madrassah but elsewhere, there is lots of information outside of fundamentalist ministries.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A


----------



## james bond

BuckToothMoron said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.
Click to expand...


It's you who is an idiot.  You said in your previous post, "no one knows for sure" in a stupid way.  If there isn't a definitive answer, then 6K - 10K is fine since I have evidence for it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you who is an idiot.  You said in your previous post, "no one knows for sure" in a stupid way.  If there isn't a definitive answer, then 6K - 10K is fine since I have evidence for it.
Click to expand...

No dummy, that's not how anything works. "We arent 100% sure, therefore 50/50"....moronic....


----------



## norwegen

Daniel 2:39 says that the Persians ruled the world, which of course they didn't, as we know. As the ancients knew, however, they _did_ rule the world; the world was Palestine.

Look what David says about the earth:

_The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,_
_the world and those who dwell therein,_​_for he has founded it upon the seas_
_and established it upon the rivers_. (_Ps_ 24:1-2)​The earth is the land established on bodies of water. It is not the planet.

Why is this so difficult for so many of my fellow Christians to understand? Our 21st-century worldview that includes knowledge of the Middle Ages, the Industrial Revolution and specialization, an expanding universe, laissez-faire economics, and all the rest, was not the worldview of the ancients.

Two different ages. Two different cultures. It's really just that simple.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Best read I've seen on the issue. Flood,yes. Global, no.

Noah's Flood


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

norwegen said:


> The earth is the land established on bodies of water. It is not the planet.


Haha...so, if we interpret it the way you say, the problem disappears. Funny how that works.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you who is an idiot.  You said in your previous post, "no one knows for sure" in a stupid way.  If there isn't a definitive answer, then 6K - 10K is fine since I have evidence for it.
Click to expand...

I’m never surprised when religious extremists make bellicose claims about evidence for miracles and supernaturalism but then screaming for the exits when tasked with presenting evidence.


----------



## Capri

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That's all total nonsense. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old, no matter who measures it. And there is no "center of the universe"...where are you getting this crap....?


I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.



Hollie said:


> Great. Since there is ample evidence for supernatural design, you must have a few examples you can share.
> 
> You have a few examples, right?


Sure. I'll have to offer only a couple from memory now and briefly. If you'd like more, I can dig out the book I suggested.

The statistical probability of eyes evolving to their current form over different lengths of time has been calculated. Even with the highest estimates for the age of the universe, eyes are a statistical impossibility.

How nerves grow and operate has been studied thoroughly. Why they develop as they do remains a mystery. That is, how do the nerves "know" where to grow to and what to connect with.

The statistical probability of birth defects is an order of magnitude greater than the incidence of birth defects.

Gravity anchors us to the earth. What's gravity? That is, what actually connects our bodies to the planet? The only answer is particle waves called gravitons. How and why gravity exists is unknown.

Dr. Schroeder's book really explains this much better than I ever could.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it doesn't.


Have you read it?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Shameless lie....


If you think something someone said is incorrect, it's appropriate to say to them that it's incorrect; it's not appropriate to accuse them of lying. Thank you.



Hollie said:


> There is a wealth of evidence for transitional fossils. You won’t find the data at any Christian madrassah but elsewhere, there is lots of information outside of fundamentalist ministries.
> 
> Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A


Interesting article. Thanks. I'll have to look into it further. The article does seem to contain some preconceptions and assumptions, but I'm only a layman, and it's definitely worth studying more.

Just an FYI, since I'm new here: I'm not a Fundamentalist and my religious beliefs are actually very non-traditional as Christianity goes. I get my information about these things from books on science written for laymen, am completely open to new information from all sources, and willing to have my mind changed. I'm very interested in how evolutionary biology and quantum physics relate to religion and see no conflict between science and faith.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT.


No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books. 
jiuuiuji


Capri said:


> Estimates of the age of the universe vary.


Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up. 



Capri said:


> There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated.


100% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.




Capri said:


> Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
> Time doesn't flow at a constant


No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself. 



Capri said:


> Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age.


No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you who is an idiot.  You said in your previous post, "no one knows for sure" in a stupid way.  If there isn't a definitive answer, then 6K - 10K is fine since I have evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dummy, that's not how anything works. "We arent 100% sure, therefore 50/50"....moronic....
Click to expand...


It is you who is a dummy, and your bud BTM can't help, because he's a moron or around 40 IQ.  

You couldn't answer how anyone knew how much lead was in the universe since no one could measure it.  This is using uranium-lead RM dating.  In fact, all of evolution is not observable.  That makes it less than 50/50 since what you start with is everything.  If you knew what was there in the beginning, then you'd have 100%.  For all we know, you could have 0% or IT'S ALL WRONG!!!  I've stated over and over atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

OTOH, creation scientists are on solid ground because we still have a nice looking Milky Way Galaxy.  If the universe was more than a few hundred million years old, then our galaxy would be all wound up with a featureless disc of stars instead of its nice spiral shape.  Next, there are too few supernova remnants.  Supernovas explode at a rate of one every 25 years.  That fits around 7K years, but not billions of years.  You are way off.

That should give you more than enough to try and answer haha.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol



He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.

The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked how old you believe it is. Of course know one knows for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you ran away from the forum b/c it was too much for your brain.  I think it's around 6K - 10K yrs old and the evidence fits it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good for you sport. You’ve proven you are a devout idiot Christian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you who is an idiot.  You said in your previous post, "no one knows for sure" in a stupid way.  If there isn't a definitive answer, then 6K - 10K is fine since I have evidence for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dummy, that's not how anything works. "We arent 100% sure, therefore 50/50"....moronic....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is you who is a dummy, and your bud BTM can't help, because he's a moron or around 40 IQ.
> 
> You couldn't answer how anyone knew how much lead was in the universe since no one could measure it.  This is using uranium-lead RM dating.  In fact, all of evolution is not observable.  That makes it less than 50/50 since what you start with is everything.  If you knew what was there in the beginning, then you'd have 100%.  For all we know, you could have 0% or IT'S ALL WRONG!!!  I've stated over and over atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> OTOH, creation scientists are on solid ground because we still have a nice looking Milky Way Galaxy.  If the universe was more than a few hundred million years old, then our galaxy would be all wound up with a featureless disc of stars instead of its nice spiral shape.  Next, there are too few supernova remnants.  Supernovas explode at a rate of one every 25 years.  That fits around 7K years, but not billions of years.  You are way off.
> 
> That should give you more than enough to try and answer haha.
Click to expand...


How nice that ID’iot creationists “have a nice looking Milky Way Galaxy”.

What ID’iot creationists don’t do is define how a “nice looking Milky Way Galaxy”, tells anyone anything relevant about space-time. 

I was never aware that Supernovae explode on a specific timeframe. That must be a part of the Id’iot creationist math used by the creationist quacks to support the all-seeing, all-knowing bibles.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
Click to expand...


I can’t help but notice that history as recited by the religo’s assumes one accepts the “....because I as so” admonition.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
Click to expand...


People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.

And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
Click to expand...



I am sure you have proof of that???


cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
Click to expand...


A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
Click to expand...



for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
Click to expand...


You take Ken Ham’s amusement park as a literal rendering of history?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> People didn't stay away from T-Rex. He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide). That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.



How could T-Rex be long extinct when God made these creatures on the same day as humans?  On the day before, the fifth day, God created birds.  Evos just made up the story that birds came from dinosaurs because birds are the only creatures with feathers.  Thus, in recent years they made up that birds evolved from them instead of reptiles.  They've started to put feathers on dinosaurs.  That is ridiculous.

Predators have a prey drive and it is natural for them to go after prey.  The dinosaurs were uninhibited.  I suppose they could be captured by humans and made to serve them.  There should be stories of this kind of things throughout history.  There are no stories of feathered dinosaurs in history.  There are no stories of dinosaurs turning into birds.  Why is it there are no stories of dinosaurs becoming extinct from an asteroid, volcanoes, and very warm climate trends?  History does not back up evolution.


No animals on top of Mt. Everest means that the Himalayas rose up from the ocean.  No land animals living there.  Noah's Flood also created the deepest oceans.  The fake scientist in the youtube thinks they discovered something new.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
Click to expand...


Bull puckey.  Here is some historical evidence.







'“The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.” (Knox, Wilson, “Dragon,” _The World Book Encyclopedia_, vol. 5, 1973, p. 265.) The article on dragons in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (1949 edition) noted that dinosaurs were “astonishingly dragonlike,” even though its author assumed that those ancients who believed in dragons did so “without the slightest knowledge” of dinosaurs. The truth is that the fathers of modern paleontology used the terms “dinosaur” and “dragon” interchangeably for quite some time."'

The creature looks like a T-Rex.  Prior to the 1850s, I would bet that secular scientists and people believed that dinosaurs weren't extinct and lived with humans.  What you believe is "faith-based" science after.  Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They could both be natural philosophies today.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
Click to expand...


Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your answer? A T-Rex ran them all away? lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull puckey.  Here is some historical evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> '“The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.” (Knox, Wilson, “Dragon,” _The World Book Encyclopedia_, vol. 5, 1973, p. 265.) The article on dragons in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (1949 edition) noted that dinosaurs were “astonishingly dragonlike,” even though its author assumed that those ancients who believed in dragons did so “without the slightest knowledge” of dinosaurs. The truth is that the fathers of modern paleontology used the terms “dinosaur” and “dragon” interchangeably for quite some time."'
> 
> The creature looks like a T-Rex.  Prior to the 1850s, I would bet that secular scientists and people believed that dinosaurs weren't extinct and lived with humans.  What you believe is "faith-based" science after.  Religion and science are two sides of the same coin.  They could both be natural philosophies today.
Click to expand...


It’s hilarious to watch as you utterly contradict yourself from thread to thread.

If, as per your nonsense claim, dinosaurs and humans inhabited the planet at the same time, renderings of dragons would be identical to T-Rex and renderings of other dinosaurs.

Fortunately, science has progressed since 1850. What a shame we can’t say the thing toward religious extremists.

Your “betting” on things you don’t understand is a fool’s errand.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?



One is the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. 

Another is,
"In 1967 Robert L. Liscomb, a petroleum geologist working for Shell Oil Company, discovered well-preserved bones in Alaska along the Colville River. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recently deposited, perhaps belonging to a mammoth or bison. Twenty years later scientists recognized the bones as belonging to the duck-billed dinosaur _Edmontosaurus._ Other bones found in this deposit belong to horned dinosaurs, and various carnivorous dinosaurs (including a pygmy _Tyrannosaurus_).

An article on Liscomb’s bones states: “The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion.” (Davies, Kylie L., “Duckbill Dinosaurs (_Hadrosaurida_e, Ornithisichia) from the North Slope of Alaska,”_ Journal of Paleontology_ 61, 1987, pp. 198-200.)  Other researchers have found similar frozen dinosaur bones. For example, in 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Canadian Eskimo picked up such a bone fragment. It was identified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duck-billed dinosaur. (Helder, Margaret, “Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found,” _Creation Ex Nihilo_ 14, 1992, p. 16.) In 2015 an article was published entitled “A New Arctic Hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation.” It states: “The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized” (Hirotsugu Mori, et. al., _Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, _Sept. 22, 2015, p. 3.).

While freezing biological material like collagen obviously inhibits decay and helps preserve structure (from your left over turkey dinner to reptile bones) there are limits to how long it can be preserved. Is it reasonable to expect frozen bones to remain in this pristine condition for 60 million years?"

Dinosaur bones have be radiocarbon dated!

"*Carbon 14 Dating of Dinosaur Bones*


Carbon 14 (C-14) dating is used to establish the age of skeletons, fossils, and other items composed of material that was once alive. Very precise analysis from modern mass spectrometers can establish the date the living material in the sample stopped taking in carbon from the environment (the point of death). Because C-14 has such a short half-life (radioactively decaying into Nitrogen 14), all detectable C-14 should have disappeared well before 100,000 years. But careful analysis by researchers has substantiated the presence of Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. Critics suggested that the samples became contaminated with modern Carbon 14. However, Carboniferous coal was carefully extracted from deep within mines (far below the layers containing dinosaur remains) and fully sealed till lab analysis. It was found to still contain Carbon 14! (Baumgardner, et. al., “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials,” _Fifth ICC Paper_, August 2003.)

In 2012, researchers analyzed multiple dinosaur bone samples from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana. C-14 dating revealed that they are less than 39,000 years old. These remarkable findings were presented by the German physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler at a conference sponsored by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) in Singapore. But apparently this evidence was unacceptable to influential evolutionists who subsequently found out about it. The abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers!"

Evolution is fake science or else their scientists will not hide the truthful evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't have to run them away.  People would stay away from it.  Even among the smaller ones were meat eaters.
> 
> The only reason you won't understand this is because fake evolution told you that they were hundreds of millions years old and became extinct.  It's part of evo history which isn't written down anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
Click to expand...



I have provided them several times,,,

if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> People didn't stay away from T-Rex.   He was long extinct before people came along.
> 
> And prey always run from predators (or hide).    That has no bearing on why there are no higher animals in the fossils on top of Mt Everest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
Click to expand...


You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.

If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure you have proof of that???
> 
> 
> cause there is a mountain of proof you are wrong,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
Click to expand...



I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,

and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A mountain of proof that man and T-Rex existed at the same time?      No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
Click to expand...


I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> for man and dinosaur the answer is yes,,,
> its just that your religion requires you to ignore it or be attacked for blasphemy,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
Click to expand...



that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,

this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,

remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???

lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
Click to expand...


I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.

I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.


The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link to these "mountains of evidence"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One is the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
> 
> Another is,
> "In 1967 Robert L. Liscomb, a petroleum geologist working for Shell Oil Company, discovered well-preserved bones in Alaska along the Colville River. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recently deposited, perhaps belonging to a mammoth or bison. Twenty years later scientists recognized the bones as belonging to the duck-billed dinosaur _Edmontosaurus._ Other bones found in this deposit belong to horned dinosaurs, and various carnivorous dinosaurs (including a pygmy _Tyrannosaurus_).
> 
> An article on Liscomb’s bones states: “The bones are stained a dark red brown but otherwise display little permineralization, crushing, or distortion.” (Davies, Kylie L., “Duckbill Dinosaurs (_Hadrosaurida_e, Ornithisichia) from the North Slope of Alaska,”_ Journal of Paleontology_ 61, 1987, pp. 198-200.)  Other researchers have found similar frozen dinosaur bones. For example, in 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Canadian Eskimo picked up such a bone fragment. It was identified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duck-billed dinosaur. (Helder, Margaret, “Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found,” _Creation Ex Nihilo_ 14, 1992, p. 16.) In 2015 an article was published entitled “A New Arctic Hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation.” It states: “The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized” (Hirotsugu Mori, et. al., _Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, _Sept. 22, 2015, p. 3.).
> 
> While freezing biological material like collagen obviously inhibits decay and helps preserve structure (from your left over turkey dinner to reptile bones) there are limits to how long it can be preserved. Is it reasonable to expect frozen bones to remain in this pristine condition for 60 million years?"
> 
> Dinosaur bones have be radiocarbon dated!
> 
> "*Carbon 14 Dating of Dinosaur Bones*
> 
> 
> Carbon 14 (C-14) dating is used to establish the age of skeletons, fossils, and other items composed of material that was once alive. Very precise analysis from modern mass spectrometers can establish the date the living material in the sample stopped taking in carbon from the environment (the point of death). Because C-14 has such a short half-life (radioactively decaying into Nitrogen 14), all detectable C-14 should have disappeared well before 100,000 years. But careful analysis by researchers has substantiated the presence of Carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. Critics suggested that the samples became contaminated with modern Carbon 14. However, Carboniferous coal was carefully extracted from deep within mines (far below the layers containing dinosaur remains) and fully sealed till lab analysis. It was found to still contain Carbon 14! (Baumgardner, et. al., “Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials,” _Fifth ICC Paper_, August 2003.)
> 
> In 2012, researchers analyzed multiple dinosaur bone samples from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana. C-14 dating revealed that they are less than 39,000 years old. These remarkable findings were presented by the German physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler at a conference sponsored by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) in Singapore. But apparently this evidence was unacceptable to influential evolutionists who subsequently found out about it. The abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers!"
> 
> Evolution is fake science or else their scientists will not hide the truthful evidence.
Click to expand...


That long cut and paste was from “Genesis Park”

Hilarious. It’s no wonder you fail to properly attribute the material you steal.

Frozen, Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones | Genesis Park


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided them several times,,,
> 
> if you did nothing but ignore them then why would you care now,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
Click to expand...

I guess you can prove that???

and why are you holding to just T-rex???

are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???


and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
Click to expand...

No dinosaurs coexisted with humans, you freak. They were separated by at least 60 million years. Good god you shameless little troll, small children know this.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
Click to expand...


Tough words,,, 

So indignant,,,

,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dinosaurs coexisted with humans, you freak. They were separated by at least 60 million years. Good god you shameless little troll, small children know this.
Click to expand...

so says the attention seeking troll,,,

I would ask for proof but whats the use,,,


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> You are correct. Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so. It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.



He is correct, but you are wrong.  Atheists/agnostics are usually wrong.

The evidence has been provided.  You cannot rebut the mountains of evidence.  Yet, you provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs.  Little birds coming from very large dinosaurs.  I think we can file this under "faith-based" mythology now.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.



Where is your evidence of this claim?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No dinosaurs coexisted with humans, you freak. They were separated by at least 60 million years. Good god you shameless little troll, small children know this.



It's been explained to you RM dating is wrong due to wrong assumptions.  If you can demonstrate how secular/atheist scientists knew what parent-daughter isotope ratios existed in the beginning, then you and they would be 100% right.  Otherwise, it's 100% wrong.  What a putz you are.  You had no comeback for your false claims about Christianity based on magic.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> I would ask for proo


No you wouldn't, you lying little freak. Nor would you consider or understand it, if someone were stupid enough to waste their time spoonfeeding it to you.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would ask for proo
> 
> 
> 
> No you wouldn't, you lying little freak. Nor would you consider or understand it, if someone was stupid enoigh to waste their time spoonfeeding it to you.
Click to expand...

man you sure get angry when your religion is challenged,,,

but what would I expect from an attention seeking troll,,,,


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so. It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is correct, but you are wrong.  Atheists/agnostics are usually wrong.
> 
> The evidence has been provided.  You cannot rebut the mountains of evidence.  Yet, you provided no evidence of birds from dinosaurs.  Little birds coming from very large dinosaurs.  I think we can file this under "faith-based" mythology now.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fact that dinosaurs never co-existed with man has nothing to do with atheism. It has everything to do with evidence and if has a great deal to do with the panic that grips religious extremists when their beliefs are confounded. They get angry, emotive, and lash out in emotional outbursts.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No you wouldn't, you lying little freak. Nor would you consider or understand it, if someone were stupid enough to waste their time spoonfeeding it to you.



Ad hominem arguments are fallacies, so you lose and are wrong again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Ad hominem arguments are fallacies


It wasn't an argument, you insufferable dumbass. You know, you use that term more than any fool i have ever tripped over, yet you clearly have no idea what it means. To the shock of absolutely nobody, for sure....


----------



## Wyatt earp

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No dinosaurs coexisted with humans, you freak. They were separated by at least 60 million years. Good god you shameless little troll, small children know this.
Click to expand...


Small children also knows the climate has always changed and the bullshit weather reports saying it's the hottest or coldest day evah!!!!!



Btw: 200 million year old Crocs have a common ancestor to the dinosaur




.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

bear513 said:


> Small children also knows the climate has always changed


Because climate scientists taught them that, genius...do you have ANY idea how dumb you sound, when you vomit that idiotic talking point?


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct.   Any website that claims mankind and T-Rex existed at the same time is bullshit.
> 
> If you want to believe that the entire scientific community is in on some conspiracy, and a handful of plucky evangelists are out to save us from their lies, by all means do so.   It doesn't change the fact that T-Rex and man never co-existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
Click to expand...


The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.

No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm talking physical evidence not opinion like evo is based on,,,
> 
> and in fact you have seen them but chose to question if the man had legal rights to have such evidence and refused to talk about the evidence itself,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
Click to expand...



ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,

and I have never misquoted you either,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no evidence.   You say you posted links, but with 45 pages on this thread and as much on another of the same topic, I did not see them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
Click to expand...


You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.

And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would explain a lot since it was on several different threads you ignored it,,,
> 
> this isnt our first rodeo now is it,,,
> 
> remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???
> 
> lets face it your religion has corrupted your mind to the point you just cant see whats in front of you if it goes against the teachings,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
Click to expand...

LIAR!!!


----------



## MarathonMike

I haven't read the whole thread but I seem to recall that there was evidence of a wooden ship at the top of Mt Ararat.


----------



## Marion Morrison

TNHarley said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does that put you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smarter than him, obviously.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking tard for suggesting a human being is smarter than God. Seriously. Were you born that stupid, or did you have to work at it? Are your parents from Alabama, or Palatka?


----------



## Yarddog

LittleNipper said:


> There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that  certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".




one theory is that the mediteranian overflowed into the black sea valley about 7000 years ago.  perhaps to people living there it would have seemed as though the flood covered the whole earth, or the whole earth that they knew.

Black Sea deluge hypothesis - Wikipedia


----------



## Borillar

I suppose that Noah had to have a floor. What else would he walk on?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem arguments are fallacies
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't an argument, you insufferable dumbass. You know, you use that term more than any fool i have ever tripped over, yet you clearly have no idea what it means. To the shock of absolutely nobody, for sure....
Click to expand...


Then let's call it a fallacy statement.  If you admit that it wasn't an argument, then it's just your worthless assertion which was still fallacious.  In other words, you are the DUMBASS making stupid statements.  We all know that.


----------



## Capri

Capri said:


> I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
> Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
> There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
> Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 00% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.


I double-checked what I wrote earlier and the book from which I got the information. I mistyped the 2 in 2.75 and subsequently copied my own error. It should have been 4.75 billion years for the estimated age of Earth. My apologies.

Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate, based on the work of cosmologists, and from books for laypeople about cosmology written by legitimate scientists. You're not discussing the topic but, rather, just claiming I made it up and being insulting.

The universe is expanding.
Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
Time flows at different rates in different locations.
The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.

If you or anyone would like to converse about that, please, let's.
If you've nothing to offer but contradiction, accusation, or insult, please don't bother.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
> Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
> There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
> Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 00% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I double-checked what I wrote earlier and the book from which I got the information. I mistyped the 2 in 2.75 and subsequently copied my own error. It should have been 4.75 billion years for the estimated age of Earth. My apologies.
> 
> Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate, based on the work of cosmologists, and from books for laypeople about cosmology written by legitimate scientists. You're not discussing the topic but, rather, just claiming I made it up and being insulting.
> 
> The universe is expanding.
> Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
> Time flows at different rates in different locations.
> The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
> Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.
> 
> If you or anyone would like to converse about that, please, let's.
> If you've nothing to offer but contradiction, accusation, or insult, please don't bother.
Click to expand...


I’m not sure what “chi” is or how that will lead anyone to some point in space that defines the point of the initial expansion of the universe.

A quick search of two of the leading research universities would refute the “chi” claim.

Where is the centre of the universe?

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3

Aside from the above, there is still irrefutable evidence of a very ancient planet and solar system.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I ran away from a thread?    lol   No, I don't remember that.
> 
> I remember embarrassing you a few times and refusing to let you misquote me.
> 
> 
> The simple truth is that T-Rex was extinct long before man showed up.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!!!
Click to expand...


Wow.    

Thanks for playing.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you can prove that???
> 
> and why are you holding to just T-rex???
> 
> are you saying other dinos did coexist with humans???
> 
> 
> and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...



figures you think this is a game,,,

maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The original comment that started this was about whether I would run from a T-Rex.    And that is what I posted when you said there were mountains of evidence that said I was wrong when I said that humans never lived in the same time period with a T-Rex.
> 
> No, you did not actually quote me.  You misquoted me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
Click to expand...


So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok we can stay with t-rex,,,you have no proof but I do,,,
> 
> and I have never misquoted you either,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LIAR!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
Click to expand...

you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have proof that the T-Rex was alive alongside humans?    No.
> 
> And yes, you did quote me and you did misquote me.
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
Click to expand...


First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?   

Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
> Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
> There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
> Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 00% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I double-checked what I wrote earlier and the book from which I got the information. I mistyped the 2 in 2.75 and subsequently copied my own error. It should have been 4.75 billion years for the estimated age of Earth. My apologies.
> 
> Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate, based on the work of cosmologists, and from books for laypeople about cosmology written by legitimate scientists. You're not discussing the topic but, rather, just claiming I made it up and being insulting.
> 
> The universe is expanding.
> Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
> Time flows at different rates in different locations.
> The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
> Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.
> 
> If you or anyone would like to converse about that, please, let's.
> If you've nothing to offer but contradiction, accusation, or insult, please don't bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what “chi” is or how that will lead anyone to some point in space that defines the point of the initial expansion of the universe.
> 
> A quick search of two of the leading research universities would refute the “chi” claim.
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3
> 
> Aside from the above, there is still irrefutable evidence of a very ancient planet and solar system.
Click to expand...

Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.

Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.

The chi claim is a theory; firmly grounded and legitimately scientific, but still a theory. There are others. All theories are open to questioning; that's sort of the point of them.

Thank you for the links. I'll read them when I have more time.

There's definitely evidence of a very ancient planet, solar system, and universe. I'm not disputing that; only saying that there's solid, modern cosmology that lends credence to the Biblical timeline from creation to now (note that the creation narrative is told from the perspective of the Creator until man is created, and from that point shifts to the perspective of humanity). The Biblical creation narrative, like the story of Noah, is a myth. Myth may be and usually is based on fact.

The ultimate point is that, rather than being in conflict, science and the Bible -- along with other ancient wisdom literature -- may co-exist harmoniously, both containing truth, both with much to teach us.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
Click to expand...



but you said I misquoted you,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
Click to expand...


After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> figures you think this is a game,,,
> 
> maybe thats why lying doesnt matter to you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
Click to expand...



which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you maintain you never quoted me?    Are you making the claim about this thread or ever?
> 
> 
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
Click to expand...


Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.

I am not running from the main topic at all.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
Click to expand...



you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said I misquoted you,,,pick one and stick with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
Click to expand...



what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist

when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
Click to expand...


Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
Click to expand...



why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
Click to expand...


LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?

T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
"T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."

Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
"_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."


There are a couple of links that might help you.

Introduction to Human Evolution

That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
Click to expand...


LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.    

Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?
> 
> T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
> "T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
> "_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."
> 
> 
> There are a couple of links that might help you.
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.
Click to expand...

sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
Click to expand...



see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away

LIAR LIAR pants on fire


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?
> 
> T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
> "T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
> "_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."
> 
> 
> There are a couple of links that might help you.
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence
Click to expand...


So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
Click to expand...


I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.


----------



## progressive hunter

e


WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?
> 
> T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
> "T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
> "_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."
> 
> 
> There are a couple of links that might help you.
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?
Click to expand...


everyday,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you said I mis quoted you,,,so please pick one and stick with it,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
Click to expand...



believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did.   That was after you said you never quoted me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
Click to expand...


Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?

And why can't you stick to the topic?

National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> why is it you have such trouble sticking to the topic???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
Click to expand...



physical evidence has no church


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!    I am having trouble?    You are the one bringing old shit up.  You claim you ran me out of a thread.   You called me names.  You scream "LIAR!!".    I am quite happy to discuss the topic.
> 
> Although I may need to go into work, so you chew on the links I posted and we will talk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
Click to expand...


And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
K–T extinction | Overview & Facts

K-T Event

The KT extinction


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> see you misquoted me again,,,I said you ran away,, not that I ran you away
> 
> LIAR LIAR pants on fire
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
Click to expand...

opinion is not physical evidence,,,


----------



## TNHarley

Marion Morrison said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where does that put you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Smarter than him, obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a fucking tard for suggesting a human being is smarter than God. Seriously. Were you born that stupid, or did you have to work at it? Are your parents from Alabama, or Palatka?
Click to expand...

God is subjective. It can't be proven. It is not fact. I am.
For you to suggest otherwise makes you the stupid one. Also intellectually dishonest. Which is even worse.
You must be from FL or some other shithole state huh?


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you said I ran away because of what you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
Click to expand...


Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.

You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.

What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> believe what you want,,I have no idea other than you were losing the debate and then werent there,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
Click to expand...



publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,

and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted 


you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,


----------



## Marion Morrison

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?
> 
> T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
> "T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
> "_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."
> 
> 
> There are a couple of links that might help you.
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?*
Click to expand...


I do, but as far as you and that guy's argument, I'm rooting for you because you're more right. You take things as fact that I don't and vice versa, but that's not germane to the argument between you 2 and I think you're more right in that particular situation.

I say the earth is less than 7000 years old. 

I have a fossilized clam in my back yard that came from a North Carolina mountain peak. How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm? I don't think they migrated there. Just a hunch.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, before you said "remember the one you had to run away from because I wouldnt let you put words in my mouth???".   Now I just disappeared?
> 
> And why can't you stick to the topic?
> 
> National Geographic is a well respected organization that presents scientific data and research.  As opposed to a church based publication trying to prove their own ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
Click to expand...


Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.

And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.


----------



## WinterBorn

Marion Morrison said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO!!!    You scream "LIAR!!!" and yet I am making it personal?     Project much?
> 
> T. rex Extinction- EnchantedLearning.com
> "T. rex went extinct during the K-T mass extinction, about 65 million years ago."
> 
> Tyrannosaurus Rex, Dinosaur Pictures, Dinosaur Facts - National Geographic
> "_Tyrannosaurus rex_ lived in forested river valleys in North America during the late Cretaceous period. It became extinct about 65 million years ago in the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction."
> 
> 
> There are a couple of links that might help you.
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution
> 
> That last links shows the history of man and the first fossil evidence of his existence is around 4 million years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry but opinion doesnt over ride physical evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So you think National Geographic prints opinion without factual evidence?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do, but as far as you and that guy's argument, I'm rooting for you because you're more right. You take things as fact that I don't and vice versa, but that's not germane to the argument between you 2 and I think you're more right in that particular situation.
> 
> I say the earth is less than 7000 years old.
> 
> I have a fossilized clam in my back yard that came from a North Carolina mountain peak. How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm? I don't think they migrated there. Just a hunch.
Click to expand...


Thanks.  I appreciate the vote of confidence.

As for the fossilized clam, the mountains did not start out as mountains.  They rose up due to the forces of the tectonic plates.  The areas were underwater prior to being pushed up by the forces of the plates.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence has no church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
Click to expand...




a conclusion is an opinion,,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> 
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
Click to expand...


Not when it is based on scientific evidence.

But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> opinion is not physical evidence,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
Click to expand...



but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are not opinions, but presentations of scientific evidence.
> 
> You demand evidence, then when I present reputable publications presenting scientific research, you dismiss it as opinion.
> 
> What is your evidence that man and T-Rex existed simultaneously?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
Click to expand...


What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.

Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> publications are nothing but opinion when there is no physical evidence to back it up,,,
> 
> and since t-rex is a dino there are thousands of examples of coexistence which have already been posted
> 
> 
> you trying to only talk about T-rex shows your dishonesty in the discussion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.
> 
> Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.
Click to expand...



a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence.    Scientists do research and publish it for peer review.   Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction?    The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.
> 
> Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not
Click to expand...


And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links.    Are they just opinion too?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> a conclusion is an opinion,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.
> 
> Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links.    Are they just opinion too?
Click to expand...



physical evidence is not opinion,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it is based on scientific evidence.
> 
> But, by your own definition, you have no evidence of the T-Rex existing at the same time that man did.  The "mountains of evidence" you claimed exist are simply opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.
> 
> Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links.    Are they just opinion too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence is not opinion,,,
Click to expand...


What physical evidence?   YOu cannot post the actual evidence online.   It must be publications.

And what about the conclusions drawn?    Are they not opinion?   You said the conclusions of the scientists I posted were just opinions.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but it is when physical evidence says otherwise,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   The physical evidence that is reported in a published work?    Your rules say that is just opinion.
> 
> Now if the published work is by the scientists who did the actual research, it is valid evidence.   At least in my opinion.   You can dismiss it if you want.  But the standards for accepting what is evidence should be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> a publication without physical evidence is just opinion and physical evidence is just that, whether its published or not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet, when asked about the "mountains of evidence" of dinosaurs and man co-existing, you posted links.    Are they just opinion too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> physical evidence is not opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What physical evidence?   YOu cannot post the actual evidence online.   It must be publications.
> 
> And what about the conclusions drawn?    Are they not opinion?   You said the conclusions of the scientists I posted were just opinions.
Click to expand...

they have been posted several times and all you and other evos do is attack the messenger and ignore the evidence,,,,,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## WinterBorn

If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures?    Isn't that opinion?

There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River.   That was debunked.

The Delk Print

This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print.   First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons.    Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints.  Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track.   And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.

That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.

Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
"Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".

"


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures?    Isn't that opinion?
> 
> There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River.   That was debunked.
> 
> The Delk Print
> 
> This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print.   First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons.    Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints.  Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track.   And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.
> 
> That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.
> 
> Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
> "Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".
> 
> "




sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures?    Isn't that opinion?
> 
> There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River.   That was debunked.
> 
> The Delk Print
> 
> This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print.   First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons.    Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints.  Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track.   And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.
> 
> That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.
> 
> Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
> "Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,
Click to expand...


They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.


----------



## WinterBorn

Your claim that all published scientific research is opinion is laughable.

Documenting the careful research of scientists, and their conclusions is not opinion.

Besides, it is your opinion that the tracks are genuine and not faked.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures?    Isn't that opinion?
> 
> There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River.   That was debunked.
> 
> The Delk Print
> 
> This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print.   First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons.    Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints.  Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track.   And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.
> 
> That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.
> 
> Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
> "Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.
Click to expand...

if they made sense they would,,,

if you looked at the picture its clear the dino was heavier than the human, and the other picture shows the test done to prove they were actual foot prints,,,and the rock was also tested under the flawed RC dating and also showed the rock was millions of yrs old


not to mention this is just one example of the hundreds of such prints found around the world,,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is indeed scientific evidence, aren't you relying on a publication of these pictures?    Isn't that opinion?
> 
> There was a claim many years ago that there were dinosaur and human footprints along side the Paluxy River.   That was debunked.
> 
> The Delk Print
> 
> This link brings up some problems with the Delk Print.   First of all, if the prints were made within minutes or hours of each other, as is claimed, why are the human footprints the same depth as the dinosaur's, given that the dinosaur weigh a few tons.    Also, there is the issue of the lack of compression of the layers under the prints.  Also, there is evidence of the removal of material around the top of the dinosaur track.   And the toes of the dino track do not fit what Baulk claims the dion is.
> 
> That and the known frauds perpetrated by Baulk (fake degrees ect) call into question his credibility.
> 
> Here are some remarks concerning these tracks:
> "Moreover, the digits on the Delk print show little if any indications of individual digit pads which are normally detectable on real dinosaur tracks with such a distinct outline. However, it does resemble a number of other likely carvings that were made decades ago, as well as some that have come out of the Glen Rose and Stephenville area in more recent years, and which were sold to tourists. I've personally inspected several of these prints, including some of the recent examples that happened to be broken through the track depressions. Unlike real tracks that show deformational lines corresponding to the print depression, the subsurface features of these loose tracks were truncated by the depressions, strongly indicating a carved origin".
> 
> "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sorry but opinions dont debunk physical evidence,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do if they point out evidence that the tracks are fake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if they made sense they would,,,
> 
> if you looked at the picture its clear the dino was heavier than the human, and the other picture shows the test done to prove they were actual foot prints,,,and the rock was also tested under the flawed RC dating and also showed the rock was millions of yrs old
> 
> 
> not to mention this is just one example of the hundreds of such prints found around the world,,,,
Click to expand...


Hundreds of dinosaur & human prints found around the world?   And you know this because of publications?

IBSS - Other Views - Carl Baugh
This is a website detailed Baugh's hoaxes.


----------



## WinterBorn

It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.


so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,

and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
Click to expand...


The evidence that shows signs of being manufactured?   

I accept the word of respected men of science.   Not those known to have committed fraud.

I also accept publications, which are peer reviewed as evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get "this crap" from books. The last one, from which I got the 2.75 billion years, was written by a physicist with his PhD from MIT. Not crap.
> Estimates of the age of the universe vary. From the last book I read on the subject, 2.75 billion was an estimate accepted as valid by cosmologists. It's been a few years so that may have changed.
> There is a center of the universe. It's the point from which the universe originated. The universe is expanding at a measurable rate. Extrapolating from that rate, the origin point has been identified.
> Time doesn't flow at a constant rate throughout the universe. On Earth, the planet is billions of years old but measuring from elsewhere would result in a different age. Using the chi spiral, that age at the center of the universe would be about 6000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wasn't. And who cares if it was? The age of the earth is based on mountains of empirical evidence, not the wishful thinking of a paid liar trying to sell books.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by more than about 5%, they don't. You are just making stuff up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 00% wrong. Complete and utter horseshit. You literally just made up that nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasnt. That is not how it works. You are making stuff up and embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't. Complete nonsense that you also just made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I double-checked what I wrote earlier and the book from which I got the information. I mistyped the 2 in 2.75 and subsequently copied my own error. It should have been 4.75 billion years for the estimated age of Earth. My apologies.
> 
> Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate, based on the work of cosmologists, and from books for laypeople about cosmology written by legitimate scientists. You're not discussing the topic but, rather, just claiming I made it up and being insulting.
> 
> The universe is expanding.
> Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
> Time flows at different rates in different locations.
> The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
> Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.
> 
> If you or anyone would like to converse about that, please, let's.
> If you've nothing to offer but contradiction, accusation, or insult, please don't bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I’m not sure what “chi” is or how that will lead anyone to some point in space that defines the point of the initial expansion of the universe.
> 
> A quick search of two of the leading research universities would refute the “chi” claim.
> 
> Where is the centre of the universe?
> 
> https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3
> 
> Aside from the above, there is still irrefutable evidence of a very ancient planet and solar system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.
> 
> Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.
> 
> The chi claim is a theory; firmly grounded and legitimately scientific, but still a theory. There are others. All theories are open to questioning; that's sort of the point of them.
> 
> Thank you for the links. I'll read them when I have more time.
> 
> There's definitely evidence of a very ancient planet, solar system, and universe. I'm not disputing that; only saying that there's solid, modern cosmology that lends credence to the Biblical timeline from creation to now (note that the creation narrative is told from the perspective of the Creator until man is created, and from that point shifts to the perspective of humanity). The Biblical creation narrative, like the story of Noah, is a myth. Myth may be and usually is based on fact.
> 
> The ultimate point is that, rather than being in conflict, science and the Bible -- along with other ancient wisdom literature -- may co-exist harmoniously, both containing truth, both with much to teach us.
Click to expand...


The problem I see with the “chi” reference is that the planet is not 6,000 years old and so much of what constitutes biblical tales are directly in conflict with science evidence. 

Let’s step back for a minute and look at two different scenarios.

A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...

*OR*


Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree... and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable? 

Just a side note - we see stars forming today by the way, in the Pleiades-- various stages of stars being formed are quite visible. Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> Regardless of my typo, however, everything I said about the center of the universe and time is accurate


No, it isn't. There is no center of the universe, nor have you read any science saying there is. If you HAD read any of the science on the topic, you would know that any point in the universe appears to be the center of the universe to an observer at that point. If the 3 dimensional space that is our universe were scaled down to two dimensions, the "center", or, the origination point of expansion (as you are conflatingthese ideas , but not correctly so) would be the center of a sphere , with a circular section of the the two dimensional surface (centered on the observer) representing all timespace we can ever observe. No, we cannot observe or point to this "center" of the sphere. It is a reference point that actually does not exist within the spacetime of our universe. 

Think of it as floating on a sea, with a circular horizon around you. You appear to be at the "center" of your observable space. Go 100 miles in any direction and look again. You will still appear to be at the center of all you can observe.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you said you never quoted me.   How about we stick with that?
> 
> Post #452 "and I have never quoted you so you sir are a LIAR,,,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but you said I misquoted you,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you said you never quoted me.   I like starting at the beginning instead of just bouncing around, picking & choosing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> which is all a deflection from the main topic because your a liar,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, you said you never quoted me, I call you on that, and now you claim I am deflecting from the main topic?    lol     Okey dokey then.
> 
> I am not running from the main topic at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> what I want to see is your evidence that man and dino didnt coexist and see how that weighs up against the evidence they did coexist
> 
> when you do that and stop making it  personal  we can have an adult conversation,,,
Click to expand...


ID’iot creationists are at a loss to offer any evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed. 

BTW, Ken Ham’s silly amusement park is not evidence for ID’iot creationists in spite of what you folks claim.


----------



## james bond

Capri said:


> The universe is expanding.
> Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
> Time flows at different rates in different locations.
> The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
> Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.



At least, we've found Fort Fun Indiana runs away from math.  He was explaining the great "shadow" photo of "Sgr A" that scientists captured from networking their telescopes to make a telescope as large as the Earth.  One of the things he got wrong was which black hole they were looking at.  It wasn't our black hole, but the black hole, Messier 87 (M87), that is in another galaxy due to its much larger size.  Also, the image we saw was not a shadow, but a silhouette.  After I found out what he told me was in error, he would not hear of it.  He sounds like he knows something about space, but can be mistaken.

So my question is is the rate of expansion constant?  How do you measure the different rates of time in different locations (I assume you use different clocks placed at the location)?  How do we find the universe's origin point?  I don't think the creation side has a theory to calculate the age of the Earth.  We just have evidence for a young Earth.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Marion Morrison said:


> How did clams get to the top of a mountain in NC, hmm?


Have you asked a 10th grader? A 10th grader will know the answer. Good luck.


----------



## james bond

Capri said:


> Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.
> 
> Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.



What defines a spiral?  We use pi r squared to define circumference?  You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.
> 
> Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defines a spiral?  We use pi r squared to define circumference?  You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.
Click to expand...

100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction



You are basing it on secular/atheist authorities which you can't explain in your own words.  

I already pointed out that these scientists systematically eliminated their opposition during the 1850s in order to promote their evolution science.  Atheists and their scientists are usualy wrong.  The creation side already provided the physical evidence of the mass extinction caused by Noah's Flood such as bent rocks, sea fossils on top of Mt. Everest, dinosaur graveyards, and the fossil evidence.  The fossils happened just thousands of years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
Click to expand...


No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated. 

You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.  

I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the physical evidence is that there was a mass extinction around 65 million years ago.
> Here are some links from reputable scientific sources:
> K–T extinction | Overview & Facts
> 
> K-T Event
> 
> The KT extinction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are basing it on secular/atheist authorities which you can't explain in your own words.
> 
> I already pointed out that these scientists systematically eliminated their opposition during the 1850s in order to promote their evolution science.  Atheists and their scientists are usualy wrong.  The creation side already provided the physical evidence of the mass extinction caused by Noah's Flood such as bent rocks, sea fossils on top of Mt. Everest, dinosaur graveyards, and the fossil evidence.  The fossils happened just thousands of years ago.
Click to expand...


Actually, your incessant whining about the 1850’s has everything to do with the tools of science becoming more precise which left less and less room for fear and superstition.

It’s really funny that you in particular would make a comment about someone explaining “in their own words” when you plagiarize so ruthlessly  and attempt to fraudulently pass off cutting and pasting from creation.com as your own.

I can’t help but to have noticed that the religious extremists in these threads are the most dishonest people I have ever come across.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.









One of the largest pieces of evidence is the story of St. George and the dragon.  There may be versions told around the world.  It would be equivalent today of viral news off the internet. It would be news of a man named St. George slaying a large dinosaur.  So, people mostly left them alone in their own neighborhoods.  They protected themselves by having shelter where they could not get to.

Look at news from today that contradicts evolution.  Many people do not want to believe the news because it goes against their worldview -- Shock as mysterious dinosaur-like BEAST washes up on beach in Kent.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> Your claim that all published scientific research is opinion is laughable.
> 
> Documenting the careful research of scientists, and their conclusions is not opinion.
> 
> Besides, it is your opinion that the tracks are genuine and not faked.








It's _biased_ research made to fit evolutionary fake science.  The evidence is circumstantial or historical evidence.  There isn't one piece of evidence based on the scientific method.  Otherwise, you would be strutting like a peacock showing us how birds came from dinosaurs and that you aren't talking dino chicken nuggets.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> The universe is expanding.
> Using the rate of expansion, the origin point of the universe can be estimated mathematically.
> Time flows at different rates in different locations.
> The age of Earth is different at the universe's origin point than it is on the planet.
> Using chi for the ratio, the age of Earth at the origin point of the universe would be approximately an age that conforms with calculations based on the Old Testament.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least, we've found Fort Fun Indiana runs away from math.  He was explaining the great "shadow" photo of "Sgr A" that scientists captured from networking their telescopes to make a telescope as large as the Earth.  One of the things he got wrong was which black hole they were looking at.  It wasn't our black hole, but the black hole, Messier 87 (M87), that is in another galaxy due to its much larger size.  Also, the image we saw was not a shadow, but a silhouette.  After I found out what he told me was in error, he would not hear of it.  He sounds like he knows something about space, but can be mistaken.
> 
> So my question is is the rate of expansion constant?  How do you measure the different rates of time in different locations (I assume you use different clocks placed at the location)?  How do we find the universe's origin point?  I don't think the creation side has a theory to calculate the age of the Earth.  We just have evidence for a young Earth.
Click to expand...


How odd that it was not ID’iot “creation scientists” at creation.com doing the research. Well, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the crank fundamentalist ministries do no research. 

BTW, will you eventually offer the “evidence” for a 6,000 year old earth? It’s tiring to read these empty claims and never an offering of evidence,


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?



You do not have it nailed.  Now, it's 4.56 B yrs old; it has gone up to 4.6 B yrs rounded.  I can practically guarantee that it will go up even more once the James Webb telescope comes online.  It's circumstantial bullsh*t.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim that all published scientific research is opinion is laughable.
> 
> Documenting the careful research of scientists, and their conclusions is not opinion.
> 
> Besides, it is your opinion that the tracks are genuine and not faked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is plenty of evidence for the K-T Mass Extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's _biased_ research made to fit evolutionary fake science.  The evidence is circumstantial or historical evidence.  There isn't one piece of evidence based on the scientific method.  Otherwise, you would be strutting like a peacock showing us how birds came from dinosaurs and that you aren't talking dino chicken nuggets.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because this line of discussion started when James Bond posted "Would you live next to a TRex? I'm sure if you did, then we'd find your fossil." as a reason why no terrestrial fossils are found on Mt Everest.
> 
> And if you do not accept publications (especially reputable scientific publications) then you obviously do not want to see any evidence. Scientists do research and publish it for peer review. Do you expect me to post pictures of the K-T Mass Extinction? The publications I posted explained what scientists found and how they came to the conclusions they did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the largest pieces of evidence is the story of St. George and the dragon.  There may be versions told around the world.  It would be equivalent today of viral news off the internet. It would be news of a man named St. George slaying a large dinosaur.  So, people mostly left them alone in their own neighborhoods.  They protected themselves by having shelter where they could not get to.
> 
> Look at news from today that contradicts evolution.  Many people do not want to believe the news because it goes against their worldview -- Shock as mysterious dinosaur-like BEAST washes up on beach in Kent.
Click to expand...


You religious extremists are so gullible. The image you cut and pasted shows a dragon. 

Dragons are of myth and legend, just to fill you in. 

BTW, your attempt at equivalency is fraudulent. The internet today making news immediately available is not at all like hundreds of years ago when storytelling was passed down (and embellished),  from generation to generation.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not have it nailed.  Now, it's 4.56 B yrs old; it has gone up to 4.6 B yrs rounded.  I can practically guarantee that it will go up even more once the James Webb telescope comes online.  It's circumstantial bullsh*t.
Click to expand...


Yes. Science is no match for the Bibles. Why, I was talking to a snake just the other day about some fruit he offered me.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.
> 
> Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defines a spiral?  We use pi r squared to define circumference?  You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?
Click to expand...



youre the only one thats lied so far,,,

4.54 billion my ass,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
Click to expand...



not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chi is an irrational number that defines a spiral, the way pi is an irrational number that defines a circle.
> 
> Chi isn't what leads to the origin point of the universe. That's based on calculations derived from the rate at which the universe is expanding. Using chi against the varying flow of time leads to Earth being 4.75 billion years old here at 6000 years old at the location of the Big Bang.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What defines a spiral?  We use pi r squared to define circumference?  You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100% wrong. It is 4.54 billion years old. We have it nailed, at this point. You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> youre the only one thats lied so far,,,
> 
> 4.54 billion my ass,,,
Click to expand...

You are embarrassing yourself and would het laughed out of a middle school science class. 

Btw, you're welcome for the attention.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
Click to expand...


Not too difficult.    Might be a little time consuming.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.



You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.

From water to land

There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.  






Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
Click to expand...


BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean. No surprise there and no signs of legs.


When you plagiarize idiotic things like this from creationist blogs you don't even understand, you reveal how completely ignorant you are of evolutionary theory. You really are embarrassing yourself. Seriously, you just got an F on the 7th grade science test.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.
> 
> From water to land
> 
> There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.
Click to expand...


The Holocaust is a fraud?


----------



## bodecea

Anyone figure out Noah's floor yet?


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean. No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> When you plagiarizee idiotic things like this from creationist blogs you don't even understand, you reveal how completely ignorant you are of evolutionary theory. You really are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...


I linked evolution.berkeley.com which I used to study evolution.  My impression is you barely graduated HS, but that's giving you way too liberal credit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> I linked evolution.berkeley.com which I used to study evolution.


No you don't, you embarrassing little liar. You say things that would get you laughed out of a freshman biology course at Berkeley. Any idiot can link to a sourceand lie about it. But it takes a special kind of idiot to do it , get caught, and still insist he is telling the truth. Or, a 2 year old.
You deserve mockery and ridicule for your embarrassing lies. . And, considering the accusations and aspersions you cast on scientists, you also deserve insult, you embarrassing freak.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.
> 
> From water to land
> 
> There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holocaust is a fraud?
Click to expand...


It goes to show Darwin was a fraud and racist.  He supported his cousin's, Francis Galton's, findings of eugenics.  His work was put on a pedestal by Hitler and became pseudoscientific basis for the Holocaust.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> I linked evolution.berkeley.com which I used to study evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No you don't, you embarrassing little liar. You say things that would get you laughed out of a freshman biology course at Berkeley. Any idiot can link to a sourceand lie about it. But it takes a special kind of idiot to do it , get caught, and still insist he is telling the truth. Or, a 2 year old.
> You deserve mockery and ridicule for your embarrassing lies. . And, considering the accusations and aspersions you cast on scientists, you also deserve insult, you embarrassing freak.
Click to expand...


My, my, my.  I continue to hit a nerve with you and you go bonkers haha.  It's either coelacanth didn't have enough time in thousands of years (this is observable, not like millions of years) to develop legs or it was just a fish.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
Click to expand...


Paluxy river. 

Explained long ago. 

Your madrassah never told you that?


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.
> 
> From water to land
> 
> There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holocaust is a fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show Darwin was a fraud and racist.  He supported his cousin's, Francis Galton's, findings of eugenics.  His work was put on a pedestal by Hitler and became pseudoscientific basis for the Holocaust.
Click to expand...


My, my but you do plagiarize that nonsense from the more extremist xtian ministries.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.
> 
> From water to land
> 
> There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.
Click to expand...


Gee whiz. You employed all the usual clichés used at the more extreme xtian ministries,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
Click to expand...



how do you know they werent???

so random guy on the internet???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
Click to expand...


Because it was widely publicized and documented.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> so because you disagree they are a fraud,,,
> 
> and its the evidence I accept not their word,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
Click to expand...

and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, not at all.   He is a fraud because of numerous frauds he has perpetrated.
> 
> You accept that the evidence is not manufactured.   I do not.
> 
> I accept the published conclusions of scientific experts who studied the K-T Mass Extinction though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
Click to expand...


Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.


----------



## idb

So...anyway...back to the topic.
Yes, scientists have been caught falsifying data.
They're human so there will always be some bad characters.
However, the scientific community has peer review and the requirement for falsifiability.
The religious community has a book and the Lord working in mysterious ways.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is very telling that you take the word of someone known to have committed fraud, but dismiss scientific research.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just been caught in your own humongous _hypocritical_ lie WinterBorn.
> 
> From water to land
> 
> There is more deliberate fraud committed by secular/atheist scientists.  For example, they lied about coelacanth.  These so-called fish that lived 400 millions of years ago and developed legs to walk on land were shown to still be living in the ocean.  No surprise there and no signs of legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then we have Piltdown Man, social Darwinism, eugenics, Hitler, the Holocaust, black genocide, and more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Holocaust is a fraud?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It goes to show Darwin was a fraud and racist.  He supported his cousin's, Francis Galton's, findings of eugenics.  His work was put on a pedestal by Hitler and became pseudoscientific basis for the Holocaust.
Click to expand...


Darwin was not a fraud.   A racist, perhaps.   And as despicable as that may be, it does not change or diminish his research and work on the diversity of species.  

Francis Galton was man of many talents.  His contributions were in many areas.    His theories on eugenics are absolutely disgusting.   But I don't see any fraud.

Hitler was a lunatic, but not a fraud.

In fact, the only fraud I see listed in your entire post is the Piltdown Man.    And in that case, the paleontologists were not the frauds.  In fact, they eventually exposed the fraud and theories of the time were adjusted accordingly.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> The problem I see with the “chi” reference is that the planet is not 6,000 years old


Again, that depends on from where in the universe one is measuring. The planet is billions of years old from where we stand. Time does not flow at a constant rate everywhere. The age of the planet from elsewhere in the universe will not be the same as it is here.



Hollie said:


> so much of what constitutes biblical tales are directly in conflict with science evidence.


The Bible isn't science text or a history text. It's a religious text meant to teach about God and morality. Any conflict between science and the Bible is, ultimately, irrelevant to both religion and science. My point here is that using science to legitimize atheism or deny the truth of the Bible is a mistaken endeavor. The Biblical account of creation and the Biblical timeline, while mythological, don't conflict with modern, legitimate science. A person need not eschew science to accept the Bible as truth, nor vise versa.



Hollie said:


> A god created existence in only 6 days, but did so in such a way to make it look immensely old and left massive clues to support that belief... and this god put forth a test to only two humans without(at least in terms of the Judeo-Christian god) giving them either the ability to make a considered choice nor did he bother to tell them the consequences would extend to every person born after them... and this god then inspired a book but did not allow the original to last in case the condemned to damnation by definition humans worship those texts... and allowed copies of copies to multiply so that huge civilizations would clash with one another over interpretations... and this god then comes down to earth as a human to act as a mediator to experience human weakness and pain and sin that he created in the first place anyway, and he's letting billions upon billions of people suffer thusly and choose eternal damnation on an ongoing basis in order to satisfy this need to experience the aforementioned... and finally in a climactic battle wherein agony and suffering will spread over the globe this god will battle his nemesis that he himself created and could blink to make disappear if he really wanted to...


I don't believe that way and Christianity doesn't demand one believe that way. None of that is any basis for rejecting God or Christianity. We could go into how 6 days can conform to modern science, too, but it would, at this point, be only a distraction. If you or anyone chooses to reject belief in God or Biblical religion, that's your choice, but using science or the dogmatic belief system of Fundamentalist Christianity as the rationale for that choice isn't legitimate.



Hollie said:


> Existence is natural, patterns form out of the exchange of energy, life evolved in some places, competition for that life implemented social structures, sentience ignited that social structure to a more and more complicated degree


All good. Now add that all that was initiated and guided by a higher intelligence ... viola ... religious faith.



Hollie said:


> and allowed for technology to extend the perceptions of humans to further and further reaches, chipping away at old, perhaps poetic and elegant but nonetheless outdated beliefs created by a ruling class that knew the power of ignorance and fear in people made them vastly more controllable?


We'll disagree that the beliefs are outdated. The narrative portions of the Bible such as creation and the flood were never meant to be taken literally. The lessons they contain are eternal.

While Christian (specifically and initially, Catholic) dogma may have been created by a ruling elite, I don't believe that's true of the Bible text. If you want to say it was altered or such, I again would argue for a guiding intelligence.



Hollie said:


> Knowing the speed of light one can measure distances, showing billions of years is required to establish the size and distances we see.


Definitely so ... from our perspective. That time doesn't flow at the same speed everywhere is established science that's been thoroughly tested.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It is 4.54 billion years old


You've taken refuge in quibbling over millions among billions. Regardless...


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> any point in the universe appears to be the center of the universe to an observer at that point.


I'm familiar with that literature and might have been happy to discuss it with you if not that...


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> nor have you read any science saying there is.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You really cannot go a single post without lying, can you?


...you persist in calling me a liar. Perhaps one day you'll learn the difference between being correct & being honest / being incorrect & being dishonest, and develop a modicum of civility. Then we might engage in conversation. As of now, we're done here.
(You are now free to tell yourself that I've run away from your blinding brilliance and congratulate yourself for a false victory, as bullies like you always do.)



james bond said:


> So my question is is the rate of expansion constant?


Present cosmology says it is.



james bond said:


> How do you measure the different rates of time in different locations


By measuring the wavelength & pulses of the background ratiation present throughout the known universe.



james bond said:


> How do we find the universe's origin point?


Mathematical extrapolation based on the rate of expansion.



james bond said:


> What defines a spiral? We use pi r squared to define circumference?


All circles can be described with pi. Some spirals can be described with chi. Look up "chi" and "golden ratio" -- it's some interesting stuff.



james bond said:


> You lost me at Earth being 4.75 B yrs old while our clock says it is 6000 yrs old at the location of BB.


Solid science based on relativity theory has demonstrated that time doesn't flow at a constant rate everywhere, despite our perception that it does. If you're standing on Earth, the planet is billions of years old. If you were observing from elsewhere, time would be flowing at a faster or slower rate than it does here. It flows faster the further out from the Big Bang you go. So if the age of the earth is measured at the origin point of the universe, it would be younger. Using chi to establish the ratio,  roughly 4 3/4 billion years on Earth would measure as roughly 6000 years at the theorized site of the Big Bang.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure how you manufacture something this size,,,
> 
> View attachment 264573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.
Click to expand...



I have googled them and found them credible,,,and they are just one of hundred of tracks around the world

and you claiming theyre fakes puts into question every claim on the age of the earth by evos since they were tested by the same people that claim the earth is billions of yrs


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, are those actually human footprints?  Or are they just something that resembles them?   Like on the Paxley River?   Those were reported to be human footprints too.  Turned out they weren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have googled them and found them credible,,,and they are just one of hundred of tracks around the world
> 
> and you claiming theyre fakes puts into question every claim on the age of the earth by evos since they were tested by the same people that claim the earth is billions of yrs
Click to expand...


Then you are ignoring the actual evidence.

There are some of the "human" tracks in which you can make out the vague outline of a toe or claw along the side of the track.   None of the track show toes or any other feature besides an irregular oblong track.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know they werent???
> 
> so random guy on the internet???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have googled them and found them credible,,,and they are just one of hundred of tracks around the world
> 
> and you claiming theyre fakes puts into question every claim on the age of the earth by evos since they were tested by the same people that claim the earth is billions of yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ignoring the actual evidence.
> 
> There are some of the "human" tracks in which you can make out the vague outline of a toe or claw along the side of the track.   None of the track show toes or any other feature besides an irregular oblong track.
Click to expand...



opinion is not evidence,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have googled them and found them credible,,,and they are just one of hundred of tracks around the world
> 
> and you claiming theyre fakes puts into question every claim on the age of the earth by evos since they were tested by the same people that claim the earth is billions of yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ignoring the actual evidence.
> 
> There are some of the "human" tracks in which you can make out the vague outline of a toe or claw along the side of the track.   None of the track show toes or any other feature besides an irregular oblong track.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> opinion is not evidence,,,
Click to expand...


Correct. Opinion is not evidence so your opinions, obviously derived from charlatans at Christian fundamentalist websites are not evidence.

Not surprising, your specious opinions come from the expected charlatans,

CC101:  Paluxy River footprints


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because it was widely publicized and documented.
> 
> 
> 
> and yet you failed to provide proof of that,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do your own research.   Google the Paxley River Tracks.  Every time I offered proof, you said it was my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have googled them and found them credible,,,and they are just one of hundred of tracks around the world
> 
> and you claiming theyre fakes puts into question every claim on the age of the earth by evos since they were tested by the same people that claim the earth is billions of yrs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are ignoring the actual evidence.
> 
> There are some of the "human" tracks in which you can make out the vague outline of a toe or claw along the side of the track.   None of the track show toes or any other feature besides an irregular oblong track.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> opinion is not evidence,,,
Click to expand...


But the credibility of the evidence is opinion.  Especially in this case.    These have been debunked.


----------



## WinterBorn

I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".


the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,

and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
Click to expand...


No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
Click to expand...



in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
Click to expand...

What "hundreds of prints",,,,?????

You religo's are funny.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".



Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
Click to expand...


Maybe they were footprints of Noah and his immediate family disembarking from their pleasure cruise?

Lots of material here you can plagiarize:

Search | Answers in Genesis


----------



## Likkmee

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
Click to expand...

But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
Click to expand...

I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Ancestors of human, yes, but chimps are not ancestors of humans.  Also, their age of 3.6 mya is far younger than the oldest human ancestors the _Australopithecus _who likely walked upright.


----------



## progressive hunter

Likkmee said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the evidence is overwhelming, its just that evo's dont like the truth being told so they attack anyone who dares speak of it
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
Click to expand...



got any proof of that???


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I for one have never been overwhelmed.  What does make me curious is that so much of Earth's history has been left out of the Bible.  A good example is the fact that the Mediterranean Sea almost completely evaporated at one time so it would have been possible to walk from Egypt to Crete.  Yet not a single mention in the Bible?  The refilling must have been spectacular but again not a single mention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
Click to expand...

Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's not a book about the history of the Earth.  It's a book about the history of God's relationship with His people.  There are a lot of important things that happened in the world around that time which weren't mentioned, because they weren't germane to the story being told.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
Click to expand...



theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,

one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,

evo uses the former  as evidence,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
Click to expand...


In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
Click to expand...


Here we have another statement confirming the willful ignorance and purposefull fraud  of religo's.


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
Click to expand...

So you'd rather go with a faked fossil from a known hoaxter?
That's your idea of being scientific?


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
Click to expand...


In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.

from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
"Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.

The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."

This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
Click to expand...


No, they say that the Laetoli footprints are likely made by Australopithecus, not chimps.


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you'd rather go with a faked fossil from a known hoaxter?
> That's your idea of being scientific?
Click to expand...



he isnt the one that found them,,,heck he wasnt even born when they were found,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
Click to expand...

your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer


nice try but no cigar,,,
I will stick with the evidence,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
Click to expand...


You dismiss all actual research by claiming it is opinion.   No published, peer reviewed work is acceptable by you because of this.   (which is convenient for you)

What Do Glen Rose Moonshiners and Alvis Delk's Dinosaur/Human Footprint Have in Common? Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas

That link discusses a man named George Adams, a moonshiner, who carved dinosaur footprints to sell.  He and his son made one that looked like human tracks and dino tracks together.  But when he heard a man from the Smithsonian wanted to see it, they took it out and got rid of it.

Just because you see a picture online does not make it hard physical evidence.


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.



Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans


----------



## OldLady

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
Click to expand...

When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> 
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dismiss all actual research by claiming it is opinion.   No published, peer reviewed work is acceptable by you because of this.   (which is convenient for you)
> 
> What Do Glen Rose Moonshiners and Alvis Delk's Dinosaur/Human Footprint Have in Common? Somervell County Salon-Glen Rose, Rainbow, Nemo, Glass....Texas
> 
> That link discusses a man named George Adams, a moonshiner, who carved dinosaur footprints to sell.  He and his son made one that looked like human tracks and dino tracks together.  But when he heard a man from the Smithsonian wanted to see it, they took it out and got rid of it.
> 
> Just because you see a picture online does not make it hard physical evidence.
Click to expand...

I never said there wasnt fakes,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real.    You want them to be real.  And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
Click to expand...

well isnt that special,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
Click to expand...


Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?

Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.

""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.

The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."

The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the tracks are physical evidence that have never been debunked no matter how many times you say they have,,,,
> 
> and the rock was tested by evos and confirmed authentic,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well isnt that special,,,
Click to expand...


Yes, it probably was very special to her family.   Don't be an ass.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
Click to expand...

who said no research was done???

if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said the rock was fake.   In fact, no one said any of this particular site is fake.   Just that they are not human footprints.  No toe marks.   Some show a toe on the side, suggesting it is the track of a dinosaur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well isnt that special,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it probably was very special to her family.   Don't be an ass.
Click to expand...

I'm not here for family stories,,,especially when they have nothing to do with the topic,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
Click to expand...


I did research it.    YOu are the one who claims that research is opinion.  Only pictures are evidence.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did research it.    YOu are the one who claims that research is opinion.  Only pictures are evidence.
Click to expand...



when did I say pictures???

physical evidence is what it is and opinion is what it is,,,


you sure like misquoting me,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did research it.    YOu are the one who claims that research is opinion.  Only pictures are evidence.
Click to expand...

if you researched it you would know it had a long list of tests and research done in proving its authenticity,,,


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Ancestors of human, yes, but chimps are not ancestors of humans.  Also, their age of 3.6 mya is far younger than the oldest human ancestors the _Australopithecus _who likely walked upright.



So wrong again.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."

The emergence of humans

Where we differ is Lucy was a chimp versus whatever.  The AA fossil are likely parts of different species as believed by Richard Leakey.

My argument to WinterBorn holds because the footprint conclusions are based on our differing worldviews.

'"The prints were discovered and defended by the recently deceased Mary Leakey (died December 9, 1996, at the age of 83), Matriarch of the famous fossil hunting Leakey family, whose finds were extensively publicized and funded by _National Geographic Magazine. _Mary Leakey was a tireless worker, whose careful research stands as some of the least controversial in a vicious, ego-laden, funding-driven, field of "one-upmanship."

As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.

The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, _New Scientist _98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, _Natural History _March 1990).

Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to _Australopithecus afarensis, _i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The _Australopithecus _foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine _(Australopithecus _foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analyses that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe _was _divergent."'

Who Or What Made The Laetoli Footprints?

If they were human, then evolution has got some "splainin' to do" as Ricky would say to Lucy (a different Lucy).  There goes _your_ "guarantee."


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
Click to expand...


Charlatans such as Carl Baugh and Don Patton did no research.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> No, they say that the Laetoli footprints are likely made by Australopithecus, not chimps.



It's scientific hypocrisy.  See my post #604.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Ancestors of human, yes, but chimps are not ancestors of humans.  Also, their age of 3.6 mya is far younger than the oldest human ancestors the _Australopithecus _who likely walked upright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wrong again.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Where we differ is Lucy was a chimp versus whatever.  The AA fossil are likely parts of different species as believed by Richard Leakey.
> 
> My argument to WinterBorn holds because the footprint conclusions are based on our differing worldviews.
> 
> '"The prints were discovered and defended by the recently deceased Mary Leakey (died December 9, 1996, at the age of 83), Matriarch of the famous fossil hunting Leakey family, whose finds were extensively publicized and funded by _National Geographic Magazine. _Mary Leakey was a tireless worker, whose careful research stands as some of the least controversial in a vicious, ego-laden, funding-driven, field of "one-upmanship."
> 
> As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.
> 
> The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, _New Scientist _98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, _Natural History _March 1990).
> 
> Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to _Australopithecus afarensis, _i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The _Australopithecus _foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine _(Australopithecus _foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analyses that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe _was _divergent."'
> 
> Who Or What Made The Laetoli Footprints?
> 
> If they were human, then evolution has got some "splainin' to do" as Ricky would say to Lucy (a different Lucy).  There goes _your_ "guarantee."
Click to expand...


When you cut and paste links to religious extremists at the ICR, you should also include the link to their statement of faith so you acknowledge they are hacks with a prederined conclusion.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well isnt that special,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it probably was very special to her family.   Don't be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not here for family stories,,,especially when they have nothing to do with the topic,,,
Click to expand...


Then skip it.   Being an asshole to someone is unnecessary.    In fact, it is easier to skip it than to reply to it.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess.  It just seems God didn't think much of his early work: ignoring most events and people and not telling His people almost anything they didn't already know, only talking about himself and their relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> you are aware god didnt write it???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he created pen and ink..Try and beat that !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> got any proof of that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither of us can provide proof, this isn't math class.  All I have is evidence.  Evidence I consider overwhelming compared to any other theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> theres a difference between evidence and physical evidence,,,
> 
> one is based on opinion and the other is based on a physical thing we can see and touch,,
> 
> evo uses the former  as evidence,,,
Click to expand...

Completely untrue.  Evidence is evidence but it is evo that uses physical evidence: fossils, stratigraphy, radioactive decay, comparative anatomy etc.  There is a competing theory that relies on eyewitness accounts of the history of life on Earth.


----------



## OldLady

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> in comment 548 you implied the whole site was faked,,and what about the other hundreds of prints around the world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well isnt that special,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it probably was very special to her family.   Don't be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not here for family stories,,,especially when they have nothing to do with the topic,,,
Click to expand...

I was bored reading a jerk like you arguing about something so patently stupid.  And it is mildly interesting that big old honkin' dinosaurs had such little tiny feet.  Kinda like deer shit, which is about the size of raisins.  Then goose shit is the size of a small dog's.

I don't know why Winterborn bothers with you; there is certainly no hope of getting through.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
Click to expand...


He took color pictures of the tracks.  These showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.

Also, the Paluxy Tracks don't help the Great Flood story.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

There are a lot of flood legends around the world that suggest that sometime in the ancient past a catastrophe occurred that was worldwide.

The best option is that around the end of the last ice age is when it occurred and sea levels raised as much as 120 meters. That's a lot of water and would change land masses a lot geographically as they settle or raise due to weight displacement. In some instances this change may have happened slowly and some rapidly. Yet it would still have affected people worldwide as migrations occurred and the tales of their coastal cities sinking beneath the sea spread.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Ancestors of human, yes, but chimps are not ancestors of humans.  Also, their age of 3.6 mya is far younger than the oldest human ancestors the _Australopithecus _who likely walked upright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So wrong again.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Where we differ is Lucy was a chimp versus whatever.  The AA fossil are likely parts of different species as believed by Richard Leakey.
> 
> My argument to WinterBorn holds because the footprint conclusions are based on our differing worldviews.
> 
> '"The prints were discovered and defended by the recently deceased Mary Leakey (died December 9, 1996, at the age of 83), Matriarch of the famous fossil hunting Leakey family, whose finds were extensively publicized and funded by _National Geographic Magazine. _Mary Leakey was a tireless worker, whose careful research stands as some of the least controversial in a vicious, ego-laden, funding-driven, field of "one-upmanship."
> 
> As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.
> 
> The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, _New Scientist _98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, _Natural History _March 1990).
> 
> Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to _Australopithecus afarensis, _i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The _Australopithecus _foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine _(Australopithecus _foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analyses that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe _was _divergent."'
> 
> Who Or What Made The Laetoli Footprints?
> 
> If they were human, then evolution has got some "splainin' to do" as Ricky would say to Lucy (a different Lucy).  There goes _your_ "guarantee."
Click to expand...

"Lucy was essentially a chimp."  Thanks for proving my point.  Chimps can walk semi-erect for short periods but _Australopithecus _were made by fully erect walkers.  There are never any hand impressions that a knuckle walker would leave.  There are numerous skeletal differences but since you think of Lucy as a chimp I doubt you would understand those either.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
Click to expand...

Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> There are a lot of flood legends around the world that suggest that sometime in the ancient past a catastrophe occurred that was worldwide.


So what? There are also legends of dragons, mermaids, flaming chariots in the sky, and all manner of goofy, magical nonsense.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot of flood legends around the world that suggest that sometime in the ancient past a catastrophe occurred that was worldwide.
> 
> 
> 
> So what? There are also legends of dragons, mermaids, flaming chariots in the sky, and all manner of goofy, magical nonsense.
Click to expand...







When confronted by a unknown superior technology many primative people would consider your goofy nonsense magic and the beings that manipulate that magic gods.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

There were dragons in those days that flew on painted wings, with painted scales covering it's body, and they ravished the cities and countrysides...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Damaged Eagle

A chariot of fire appeared in the heavens drawn by horses of fire.

*****CHUCKLE*****




...Imagine the ballon having flaming horses embroidered or painted on it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> When confronted by a unknown superior technology many primative people would consider your goofy nonsense magic and the beings that manipulate that magic gods


How is that relevant? I don't know what you are getting at.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> When confronted by a unknown superior technology many primative people would consider your goofy nonsense magic and the beings that manipulate that magic gods
> 
> 
> 
> How is that relevant? I don't know what you are getting at.
Click to expand...







I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.


In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!
Click to expand...








I've been explaining my point of view very well while all you appear to be capable of is trolling and mouthing off like a jack ass. 

Does this mouthing off about other opinions and beliefs come with a highly vaunted progressive education?

Show me once where I've alluded to anything magical other than in your deluded mind.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been explaining my point of view very well while all you appear to be capable of is trolling and mouthing off like a jack ass.
> 
> Does this mouthing off about other opinions and beliefs come with a highly vaunted progressive education?
> 
> Show me once where I've alluded to anything magical other than in your deluded mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Are you done whining? Geesh.

So, care to explain what you were getting at? You say people would be amazed by tech...so...who cares? How is that relevant?


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been explaining my point of view very well while all you appear to be capable of is trolling and mouthing off like a jack ass.
> 
> Does this mouthing off about other opinions and beliefs come with a highly vaunted progressive education?
> 
> Show me once where I've alluded to anything magical other than in your deluded mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you done whining? Geesh.
> 
> So, care to explain what you were getting at? You say people would be amazed by tech...so...who cares? How is that relevant?
Click to expand...







No because I considered your first post to me to be a whine about your own incompetence in visual imagery and inability to comprehend.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been explaining my point of view very well while all you appear to be capable of is trolling and mouthing off like a jack ass.
> 
> Does this mouthing off about other opinions and beliefs come with a highly vaunted progressive education?
> 
> Show me once where I've alluded to anything magical other than in your deluded mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you done whining? Geesh.
> 
> So, care to explain what you were getting at? You say people would be amazed by tech...so...who cares? How is that relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because I considered your first post to me to be a whine about your own incompetence in visual imagery and inability to comprehend.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Neato!

So,back to whatever nonsense you are peddling. You say there are many myths that supoort a global flood. Ignoring the fact that such a claim is hilariously dumb and wrong (floods happen all over the planet every year....accounts of them are not support for a global event), I asked, "So what? Many legends about all kinds of silly nonsense exist."

And your response made no sense. Following?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy



Paluxy is evidence, but I don't think it's conclusive evidence.  For one, the tracks are slowly being eroded away and the State of Texas isn't doing anything to save them such as diverting the river.  I think the human footprints are long gone, so it's based on what evidence was captured back then.  My opinion is more evidence needs to be found in order to add to this physical evidence.  I understand what you are saying that the human footprints were different dinosaur ones, but I think it's based on your experts.  I would have to defer to experts on the human ones.  I think we agree that the dino footprints are in fact dino ones.



WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they say that the Laetoli footprints are likely made by Australopithecus, not chimps.
Click to expand...


Creation scientists and I believe Lucy or AA were chimps.  There isn't enough clear evidence with AA.  Even Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy, who put together Lucy,, thinks Ardi, i.e Ardipithecus ramidus presents better evidence and that apes evolved from humans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> Paluxy is evidence,


Good god man,no it isn't, get it through your skull. We really can't dumb this down any further for you. The anatomy is all wrong. Get it through your head!


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you don't understand any more than you understood your own opening comment to me.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you posted some gibberish you can't even explain. Shocking!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been explaining my point of view very well while all you appear to be capable of is trolling and mouthing off like a jack ass.
> 
> Does this mouthing off about other opinions and beliefs come with a highly vaunted progressive education?
> 
> Show me once where I've alluded to anything magical other than in your deluded mind.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you done whining? Geesh.
> 
> So, care to explain what you were getting at? You say people would be amazed by tech...so...who cares? How is that relevant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because I considered your first post to me to be a whine about your own incompetence in visual imagery and inability to comprehend.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neato!
> 
> So,back to whatever nonsense you are peddling. You say there are many myths that supoort a global flood. Ignoring the fact that such a claim is hilariously dumb and wrong (floods happen all over the planet every year....accounts of them are not support for a global event), I asked, "So what? Many legends about all kinds of silly nonsense exist."
> 
> And your response made no sense. Following?
Click to expand...







What don't you understand about mile thick ice sheets melting?

Reminds me of your pathetic argument...

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> What don't you understand about mile thick ice sheets melting?
> 
> Reminds me of your pathetic argument...


You really have a hard time articulating complete thoughts, don't you? Nobody knows what the hell you are babbling about...least of all, you....


----------



## james bond

OldLady said:


> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down. But the creature was big -- just had little feet. I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though. Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log." LOL



You should've asked for your money back.  Dinosaur tracks are usually very large.  Bird footprints are small.  Never the twain shall meet.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The anatomy is all wrong.


 
How do you know the anatomy is wrong?  You don't even know what state park we are talking about.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> How do you know the anatomy is wrong?


Because any child can read about the Paluxy footprints on the internet. Get off your plagiarization fetish blog creation.com once in a while.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't you understand about mile thick ice sheets melting?
> 
> Reminds me of your pathetic argument...
> 
> 
> 
> You really have a hard time articulating complete thoughts, don't you? Nobody knows what the hell you are babbling about...least of all, you....
Click to expand...






So now you're not only incapable of comprehending and responding on subject matter on topic but are only capable of trolling incesively like a worm engorging itself in shit.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
Click to expand...


Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.


----------



## WinterBorn

The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> So now you're not only incapable of comprehending and responding on subject matter on topic


I responded right on topic and directly to your idiotic claim .  Your response was nonsensical, so I asked you to explain it. That's when you went into your usual tailspin. Goddamn son, you're like a child.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
Click to expand...


How can there be old fossils?

It’s actually comical to see you utterly contradict yourself from post to post.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paluxy is evidence, but I don't think it's conclusive evidence.  For one, the tracks are slowly being eroded away and the State of Texas isn't doing anything to save them such as diverting the river.  I think the human footprints are long gone, so it's based on what evidence was captured back then.  My opinion is more evidence needs to be found in order to add to this physical evidence.  I understand what you are saying that the human footprints were different dinosaur ones, but I think it's based on your experts.  I would have to defer to experts on the human ones.  I think we agree that the dino footprints are in fact dino ones.
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not surprised that you believe the tracks are real. You want them to be real. And any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, you label as "opinion".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they say that the Laetoli footprints are likely made by Australopithecus, not chimps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation scientists and I believe Lucy or AA were chimps.  There isn't enough clear evidence with AA.  Even Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy, who put together Lucy,, thinks Ardi, i.e Ardipithecus ramidus presents better evidence and that apes evolved from humans.
Click to expand...


You think the human footprints have disappeared since the 1930s?


----------



## progressive hunter

OldLady said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In that post I was referring to the Delk Tracks.    The first footprint pic you showed.   In the second I was referring to the Paluxy Prints.
> 
> 
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down.  But the creature was big -- just had little feet.  I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though.  Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log."  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well isnt that special,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it probably was very special to her family.   Don't be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not here for family stories,,,especially when they have nothing to do with the topic,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was bored reading a jerk like you arguing about something so patently stupid.  And it is mildly interesting that big old honkin' dinosaurs had such little tiny feet.  Kinda like deer shit, which is about the size of raisins.  Then goose shit is the size of a small dog's.
> 
> I don't know why Winterborn bothers with you; there is certainly no hope of getting through.
Click to expand...




you were so bored you had to respond and bring down the discussion,,,got it


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such scientific hypocrisy.  Your side believes that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.  Those prints look like fully modern human footprints.  They were found in a layer too old to be humans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He took color pictures of the tracks.  These showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.
> 
> Also, the Paluxy Tracks don't help the Great Flood story.
Click to expand...



in your opinion,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.




how do you know that???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the Paluxy Tracks they look, superficially, like human footprints.   But there are problems with them, as I posted links to explain.
> 
> from:   The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> "Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> This site examines the tracks more closely:    Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> 
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He took color pictures of the tracks.  These showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.
> 
> Also, the Paluxy Tracks don't help the Great Flood story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,
Click to expand...


It is not my opinion that he took color pictures and that they showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.  These are documented facts.  The marks along the side of the footprints are not opinions, they are documented facts.

The Paluxy Tracks are on the top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock.  That is not opinion.  That is fact.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
Click to expand...


Geologists have measured it.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> your first link wont let me read it unless I give it access to my computer which I wont do, the other was written by a computer programmer
> 
> 
> nice try but no cigar,,,
> I will stick with the evidence,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He took color pictures of the tracks.  These showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.
> 
> Also, the Paluxy Tracks don't help the Great Flood story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my opinion that he took color pictures and that they showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.  These are documented facts.  The marks along the side of the footprints are not opinions, they are documented facts.
> 
> The Paluxy Tracks are on the top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock.  That is not opinion.  That is fact.
Click to expand...



so it happened long after the earth was formed,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
Click to expand...

how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence?   Photos with little or no research?   I've seen pics of Bigfoot online too.  Is that evidence?
> 
> Well, lucky for you I quoted 2 paragraphs from the website.    I'll quote them again for you.
> 
> ""Since the 1930s, dinosaur tracks have been known from the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. What makes these tracks so controversial are claims that as well as the footprints of dinosaurs, there are unmistakably human footprints in the same strata. Even creationists admit that some of them are fakes. In some of the ‘man tracks’, it is possible to make out traces of toes to the side of the ‘foot’, which suggests that they are nothing more mysterious than highly eroded three-toed dinosaur tracks. Some also show claw marks at the ‘heel’ of the print, which is another feature typical of a dinosaur footprint but not of a human footprint. In at least one footprint sequence, there is the inexplicable coincidence that dinosaur tracks and ‘human footprints’ alternate.
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘man prints’ may resemble human footprints superficially, but they lack the anatomy of real human footprints. Furthermore, dinosaurs and humans are of very different size and weight, but in the Paluxy River, tracks made by some undisputed dinosaurs and supposed humans are sunk to the same depth in the rock, which suggests that both types were made by creatures of the same general weight; there are tracks, made by different dinosaur species sunk to different depths. In the same way, the distances between footfalls of those tracks made to the same depth are spaced the same distance apart, showing that they were made by creatures with similar stride lengths."
> 
> The fact that Glen J. Kuban is a computer programmer does nothing to change his findings.   He is an independent researcher and his research is well documented.
> 
> 
> 
> who said no research was done???
> 
> if you took the time to research it you would know how much was done,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He took color pictures of the tracks.  These showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.
> 
> Also, the Paluxy Tracks don't help the Great Flood story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> in your opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not my opinion that he took color pictures and that they showed differences that are inconsistent with human tracks.  These are documented facts.  The marks along the side of the footprints are not opinions, they are documented facts.
> 
> The Paluxy Tracks are on the top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock.  That is not opinion.  That is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> so it happened long after the earth was formed,,,
Click to expand...


And?     Of course it happened long after the earth was formed.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
Click to expand...


If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...



or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
Click to expand...


And the great flood left no mark on the land?


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs.   There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks.  So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
Click to expand...


Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know that???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

what is "it"???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Geologists have measured it.
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is "it"???
Click to expand...


"It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you know it didnt kill the dinos???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is "it"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
Click to expand...



those are one and the same arent they???


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that the great flood killed the dinosaurs and left the huge sedimentary layers of rock, then the Paluxy tracks make that harder to believe.   If the flood laid down the sedimentary layers that are hundreds of feet below the tracks, and the tracks were made in the mud on top of all of that, the great flood did not kill the dinosaurs.   Seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is "it"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
Click to expand...


For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.   

So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".

What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> or it could be the earth was already there when it happened,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what is "it"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
Click to expand...

you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,

the answer is in your comment,,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and this is not even an opinion.    It is more of a "it could happen", without any evidence whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> what is "it"???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
Click to expand...


Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is "it"???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
Click to expand...

because you were talking in circles,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "It" is whatever you were referring to when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when *it* happened".    I assume you are talking about the hundreds of feet of earth that became the sedimentary rock, and not the planet Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you were talking in circles,,,
Click to expand...


I am not talking in circles.  I explained, very clearly, why the idea that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is inconsistent with the Paluxy tracks being there.

But yes, the planet Earth was there when the sedimentary layers beneath the Paluxy tracks were laid down.

And the research, as I documented, shows that both sets of tracks were made by dinosaurs (since man does not have anything on the outside of his foot to make the additional marks that have been found).


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> those are one and the same arent they???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you were talking in circles,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not talking in circles.  I explained, very clearly, why the idea that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is inconsistent with the Paluxy tracks being there.
> 
> But yes, the planet Earth was there when the sedimentary layers beneath the Paluxy tracks were laid down.
> 
> And the research, as I documented, shows that both sets of tracks were made by dinosaurs (since man does not have anything on the outside of his foot to make the additional marks that have been found).
Click to expand...



you obviously are looking at different tracks, because this track doesnt have an outside appendage,,,


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> 
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you were talking in circles,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not talking in circles.  I explained, very clearly, why the idea that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is inconsistent with the Paluxy tracks being there.
> 
> But yes, the planet Earth was there when the sedimentary layers beneath the Paluxy tracks were laid down.
> 
> And the research, as I documented, shows that both sets of tracks were made by dinosaurs (since man does not have anything on the outside of his foot to make the additional marks that have been found).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously are looking at different tracks, because this track doesnt have an outside appendage,,,
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264792
Click to expand...


Nice footprint.     Now show that it comes from the Paluxy river tracks.  Because that is not what is seen in the other pics of the Paluxy tracks.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


>



And that is not a footprint from the Paluxy tracks either.    It is a totally different track, and not what we are discussing.    Rather dishonest of you, isn't it?


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this part of our discussion, no.     YOu have argued that the great flood created a huge layer of sedimentary rock, AND that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.    Now obviously the great flood, if it happened, did not create the planet Earth or move the planet Earth.
> 
> So what did you mean when you said "or it could be the earth was already there when it happened"?    That the planet was already there?    Of course it was.   That the hundreds of feet of sediment was there?   That would depend on what you meant by "...when it happened".
> 
> What did you mean by "...when it happened"?   What is "it" in that sentence?
> 
> 
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you were talking in circles,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not talking in circles.  I explained, very clearly, why the idea that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is inconsistent with the Paluxy tracks being there.
> 
> But yes, the planet Earth was there when the sedimentary layers beneath the Paluxy tracks were laid down.
> 
> And the research, as I documented, shows that both sets of tracks were made by dinosaurs (since man does not have anything on the outside of his foot to make the additional marks that have been found).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously are looking at different tracks, because this track doesnt have an outside appendage,,,
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264792
Click to expand...


This pic is called the Zapata Track, and was found on a loose rock in New Mexico.   It is not anywhere near the Paluxy Tracks.

The Zapata track has not even been claimed real by most creationists.    Being found on a loose rock, and not part of any striding tracks, it becomes suspect.  The rock has not been dated, and it was not attached to any rock containing dino tracks.


----------



## WinterBorn

You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.

Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are one seriously fucked in the head individual,,,
> 
> the answer is in your comment,,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you ask "what is "it"???"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because you were talking in circles,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not talking in circles.  I explained, very clearly, why the idea that the great flood caused the extinction of the dinosaurs is inconsistent with the Paluxy tracks being there.
> 
> But yes, the planet Earth was there when the sedimentary layers beneath the Paluxy tracks were laid down.
> 
> And the research, as I documented, shows that both sets of tracks were made by dinosaurs (since man does not have anything on the outside of his foot to make the additional marks that have been found).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you obviously are looking at different tracks, because this track doesnt have an outside appendage,,,
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 264792
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This pic is called the Zapata Track, and was found on a loose rock in New Mexico.   It is not anywhere near the Paluxy Tracks.
> 
> The Zapata track has not even been claimed real by most creationists.    Being found on a loose rock, and not part of any striding tracks, it becomes suspect.  The rock has not been dated, and it was not attached to any rock containing dino tracks.
Click to expand...

sorry its what came up when I googled paluxy tracks,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.


paluxy tracks - Google Search


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.


at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
Click to expand...


I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.

When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.  
But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.

You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.

I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant. 

But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Great Flood was real. I know, because I was in it. It was named Katrina, and it hit in 2005!


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because any child can read about the Paluxy footprints on the internet. Get off your plagiarization fetish blog creation.com once in a while.



You don't know because you didn't give a decent answer.  I can accept that.  Moreover, you didn't know which state park it was.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now you're not only incapable of comprehending and responding on subject matter on topic
> 
> 
> 
> I responded right on topic and directly to your idiotic claim .  Your response was nonsensical, so I asked you to explain it. That's when you went into your usual tailspin. Goddamn son, you're like a child.
Click to expand...







Whilst I responded with evidence that refuted your idiotic nonsense and claims of superiority.

Do you actually want to discuss the topic and what's put forth in a reasonable manner or should we just trade barbs because that's all your feeble mind is capable of accomplishing?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs. There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks. So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.










Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  The man holding the baby is standing on the top layer. The other people are walking on the middle layer.






The middle layer contains the dino tracks.









The human-dino tracks are now outside the Dinosaur Valley State Park (which Fort Fun Indiana did not know).  I guess they removed some of those, albeit some were probably sold.  I think the ones at Paluxy you are referring to (argument of both dino tracks instead of human and dino; pics above (?)) were washed away.  The state didn't or wouldn't pay for diverting the river.  One of the disadvantages of being removed from mainstream science.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> You think the human footprints have disappeared since the 1930s?



Which ones are you referring to?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Dinosaurs and people co-existed! I saw it on the Flintstones!


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe the Paluxy tracks are human and dinosaur basically shoots down the idea that the Great Flood killed the dinosaurs. There are hundreds of feet of sedimentary rock below the tracks. So, if there was a great flood, the tracks were made after that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure you know what you are talking about?  The man holding the baby is standing on the top layer. The other people are walking on the middle layer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The middle layer contains the dino tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The human-dino tracks are now outside the Dinosaur Valley State Park (which Fort Fun Indiana did not know).  I guess they removed some of those, albeit some were probably sold.  I think the ones at Paluxy you are referring to (argument of both dino tracks instead of human and dino; pics above (?)) were washed away.  The state didn't or wouldn't pay for diverting the river.  One of the disadvantages of being removed from mainstream science.
Click to expand...


Funny stuff. You cut and pasted the photos from someone’s personal blog called “daily bible reader”. 

You thumpers are a superstitious lot.


----------



## WinterBorn

Vandalshandle said:


> The Great Flood was real. I know, because I was in it. It was named Katrina, and it hit in 2005!



Don't know about it causing the extinction of dinosaurs, but it sure caused plenty of extinction in New Orleans.   Glad you survived.


----------



## alang1216

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
Click to expand...

I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.


----------



## OldLady

james bond said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> When my son was small, we got very excited going to visit Dinosaur State Park in Connecticut, where they said they had REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS!!!!
> They didn't look like much--more like bird tracks, so it was a bit of a let down. But the creature was big -- just had little feet. I was expecting footprints you could lay down in and do snow angels.
> We had fun on the nature trails, though. Still joke about the sign saying "rotting log." LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should've asked for your money back.  Dinosaur tracks are usually very large.  Bird footprints are small.  Never the twain shall meet.
Click to expand...

I couldn't copy the pic, but hopefully it is here--the prints.  Although it's dark, it shows a man in the background to get an idea of their size.
The creature, though, is quite large.
Dinosaur State Park & Museum (Rocky Hill) - 2019 All You Need to Know BEFORE You Go (with Photos) - TripAdvisor


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
Click to expand...



I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.
Click to expand...

you mean like these??


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like these??
> 
> View attachment 264820
Click to expand...

How common are these feet?  We have one set of footprints from this time and they were made by someone with this syndrome?  Not impossible but highly unlikely.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean like these??
> 
> View attachment 264820
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How common are these feet?  We have one set of footprints from this time and they were made by someone with this syndrome?  Not impossible but highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,


No idea what you mean by "very common for some", seems like an oxymoron.

Never heard the shoe thing before, got a link?


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> very common for some,,,and very likely for a people that never wore shoes,,,
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what you mean by "very common for some", seems like an oxymoron.
> 
> Never heard the shoe thing before, got a link?
Click to expand...



Redirect Notice


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> Redirect Notice


Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.
Click to expand...


Health and the Huaorani | The Yale Review of International Studies


----------



## james bond

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.
Click to expand...


Being splayed would also fit of living humans.  There is evidence of chimps and apes tracks and non-splayed humans.  I don't see any evidence of humanoids (bizarre).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guarantee, no one who understans anything about human evolution would ever believe that the Laetoli footprints meant chimps started walking bipedal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong haha.  "The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to _Australopithecus afarensis_ are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans."
> 
> The emergence of humans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know of any bipedal chimps?  Dogs can walk on two legs, are they bipedal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chimps and apes are not bipedal.  We also know that their skull capacities didn't increase from those of old fossils.  If the present is the key to the past, then the chimps/apes in the past did not become bipedal either.  Thus, it contradicts the Laetoli footprints being chimps or apes.  They were most likely human like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we can agree that the footprints are not from chimps, they were most likely human*oid*.  As you wrote, "they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans" so we also agree the beings that left them were not quite the humans of today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being splayed would also fit of living humans.  There is evidence of chimps and apes tracks and non-splayed humans.  I don't see any evidence of humanoids.
Click to expand...

Because you have your head up your ass. All you see is jesus and corn.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
Click to expand...


Here are the sites explaining it.

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy



There are 4 sites with plenty of info.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
Click to expand...


I posted 4 links.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
Click to expand...



3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,

sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pulling pics off the internet that have no bearing to the topic.   And you are trying to pass them off as Paluxy Tracks, which is dishonest.
> 
> Let me know when you want to get back to what we were discussing.
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
Click to expand...


What "true achaeologist" is that?


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> at least I tried to provide something other than my opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
Click to expand...



any that actually worked in the field


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
Click to expand...


Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
Click to expand...




when did I say I believe in something???

i'm still searching for the truth,,

your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,



and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have provided much more than my opinion.  I have provided scientific research and evidence.
> 
> When you Googled "paluxy tracks" one of the pics you got was the one you posted.
> But if you had clicked on it you would have see this attached to it:"*The Zapata Track [Draft] - Reviews an alleged human print on a loose rock from New Mexico*" and you would have known it was not from the Paluxy river.
> 
> You are so desperate to prove something you will post anything you can find, whether it applies or not.
> 
> I've got to work in the morning.   Its getting close to midnight here.  Take the night and see if you can post something relevant.
> 
> But this is the problem with your "publications are opinions/pictures are evidence" mindset.   You have to know what the pictures are of, and what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
Click to expand...


See? Blatant, embarrassing little liar.

Why is anyone responding to this dishonest little twat? He's just yanking your chains for attention.


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
Click to expand...


Have I ever said that?

But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.

Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that?
> 
> But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.
> 
> Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.
Click to expand...



I never said you did,,,

and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,

my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,

so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been trying to find a picture of the print  you claim with an appendage sticking out the side,,,maybe you can help???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the sites explaining it.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> The Paluxy River ‘footprints’ - Bad Archaeology
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy
> 
> A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
> 
> 
> 
> There are 4 sites with plenty of info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 3 of them are repeat articles written by a computer programmer with no creds for archaeology and amount to nothing but a hit job and no facts,,, and the 4th wont let me read it,,,,
> 
> sorry I will go with a true archaeologist on this one,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See? Blatant, embarrassing little liar.
> 
> Why is anyone responding to this dishonest little twat? He's just yanking your chains for attention.
Click to expand...



thanks for the attention,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "true achaeologist" is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that?
> 
> But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.
> 
> Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you did,,,
> 
> and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,
> 
> my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,
> 
> so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,
Click to expand...


It’s comical that you rattle on about evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted yet you fail to produce any of that evidence.


----------



## alang1216

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health and the Huaorani | The Yale Review of International Studies
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.  And as you might say, no proof.


----------



## progressive hunter

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, my system doesn't like your link so it killed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Health and the Huaorani | The Yale Review of International Studies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a difference between what is possible and what is probable.  And as you might say, no proof.
Click to expand...

there is also a difference between what is and what isnt,,,


----------



## LittleNipper

TNHarley said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
Click to expand...

GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> any that actually worked in the field
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that?
> 
> But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.
> 
> Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you did,,,
> 
> and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,
> 
> my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,
> 
> so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s comical that you rattle on about evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted yet you fail to produce any of that evidence.
Click to expand...

What's sad is when such evidence is presented and yet ignored: Dinosaur Tracks


----------



## WinterBorn

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that?
> 
> But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.
> 
> Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you did,,,
> 
> and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,
> 
> my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,
> 
> so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s comical that you rattle on about evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted yet you fail to produce any of that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's sad is when such evidence is presented and yet ignored: Dinosaur Tracks
Click to expand...


There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks.   If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you.   I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.



Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.

ETA:  If evidence is found of human and dinosaur tracks that are irrefutable, then does it destroy evolution?


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
Click to expand...


How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
Click to expand...


Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.


----------



## james bond

I'm going to move on from the Paluxy river evidence.  I think there may have been good evidence there in the past according to long-time residents there, but one can't be sure today that it is conclusive evidence.










The Laeotoli footprints evidence don't look that good either, but the evos are convinced because it fits their theory.  That's all they have.


----------



## Mike Dwight

They've proven the floor of Noah like we already have the Bark of the Covenant. I Quested for the Holy Brail. It was next to the Holy Lance of Judas.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
Click to expand...

What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.
Click to expand...


That’s what I’ve always thought. Everything one needs to know is in the Bible.


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I have posted links to the research of numerous true archeologists and true paleontologists.   But you dismissed them all as "opinion".    I think you only accept research which proves what you already believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when did I say I believe in something???
> 
> i'm still searching for the truth,,
> 
> your sources are going off of false or flawed  assumptions is why I reject them,,,
> 
> 
> 
> and what happened to the evo talking point of if they arent educated in the field they arent credible???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever said that?
> 
> But, for pure research, the degree matters.   For examining tracks I think am amateur, with a history of field work, is good.
> 
> Up to you.   But neither the scientific community nor most creationists believe that the Paluxy tracks are human.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you did,,,
> 
> and there are more tracks than just the [paluxy as I have said several times,,,
> 
> my point is there is more physical evidence that humans and dinos either coexisted or were far closer than the 135?? million yrs,,
> 
> so at this point considering that and a whole host of other things I am leaning toward a younger earth where we didnt come from a rock,,actually as to the age of the earth itself, that is unknown and I guess never will be for sure,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It’s comical that you rattle on about evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted yet you fail to produce any of that evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's sad is when such evidence is presented and yet ignored: Dinosaur Tracks
Click to expand...


The site you linked to uses the term “evolutionary philosophers”. Can you describe what that means?


----------



## LittleNipper

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> We just did.  Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world.  It also goes to show that the Earth is young.  Even the rocks in your head are bent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s what I’ve always thought. Everything one needs to know is in the Bible.
Click to expand...

One can certainly consider things in light of the Bible and not use it to make fun of...


----------



## Capri

LittleNipper said:


> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.


Light is electromagnetic wave-particles. Electrons & quarks are electromagnetic wave-particles. Electrons & quarks make up atoms; atoms make up everything.

Which is why you can never trust atoms 

Let there be light. Let there be the fundamental building blocks of all matter. Same thing.


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.
Click to expand...



you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,


----------



## Hollie

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohhhh...I see. You’re one of those ‘earth is 6000 years old’ fellas. Well I have debated your ilk before, so I’ll just bow out now. You can’t debate just plain stoopit.
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s what I’ve always thought. Everything one needs to know is in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can certainly consider things in light of the Bible and not use it to make fun of...
Click to expand...


It's not my intention to make fun of religion but I do require religionists to meet the same standards they hold reason and rationality to. 

When it involves coming to conclusions about _all_ religious ideologies, I do make judgments. I make assessments about the internal components of the ideology which has an external result that affects many. I do judge, it's necessary and required to do so in order to discern how to proceed with both things and people. 

As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what makes GOD stupid? And it is possible that the age of the earth is off by a few thousand years perhaps, but not 100's of millions and billions. This is simply a ridicules attempt to replace THE CREATOR of all things with enough T I M E.
> 
> 
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s what I’ve always thought. Everything one needs to know is in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can certainly consider things in light of the Bible and not use it to make fun of...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my intention to make fun of religion but I do require religionists to meet the same standards they hold reason and rationality to.
> 
> When it involves coming to conclusions about _all_ religious ideologies, I do make judgments. I make assessments about the internal components of the ideology which has an external result that affects many. I do judge, it's necessary and required to do so in order to discern how to proceed with both things and people.
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
Click to expand...

and yet you dont expect evos to hold to the same standards as the religious that openly claim its based on faith and not fact as evos claim,,,

evolution is nothing but another religion,,but its taught as fact using tax payer money,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> God is stupid. He made plants before sunlight.
> 
> 
> 
> GOD is brilliant. He created light before creation of a source. In that way, there is no reason to concern one's self with light years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That’s what I’ve always thought. Everything one needs to know is in the Bible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One can certainly consider things in light of the Bible and not use it to make fun of...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not my intention to make fun of religion but I do require religionists to meet the same standards they hold reason and rationality to.
> 
> When it involves coming to conclusions about _all_ religious ideologies, I do make judgments. I make assessments about the internal components of the ideology which has an external result that affects many. I do judge, it's necessary and required to do so in order to discern how to proceed with both things and people.
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet you dont expect evos to hold to the same standards as the religious that openly claim its based on faith and not fact as evos claim,,,
> 
> evolution is nothing but another religion,,but its taught as fact using tax payer money,,,
Click to expand...


There's an entire section of this board for your kind of conspiracy theories.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.


All true, and well said.

Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
> 
> 
> 
> All true, and well said.
> 
> Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
> All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.
Click to expand...


I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.

The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical _trust _that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.

I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.

Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.
Click to expand...











Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur?  If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?

To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs.  Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal.  The present is the key to the past.

You showed that you are not credible.  Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs.  This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks.  The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.

Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.

The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."

Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis.  That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.

What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing.  *Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."  *Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.


----------



## james bond

progressive hunter said:


> you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,



I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject.  Moreover, he did not answer my questions.

If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).


----------



## WinterBorn

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,
Click to expand...


I presented links to scientific research several times.   You just dismissed them as opinion.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject.  Moreover, he did not answer my questions.
> 
> If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).
Click to expand...


First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory.   But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy.    It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks.  Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.

You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons.   I have presented a good deal of scientific research.   The fact that you dismiss it does not change that.  And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion



So you admit that _your_ scientific research fit those of creation?

"When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.

The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"

Dinosaur Tracks


----------



## progressive hunter

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> you presented no research,,,only your opinion,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for this research and he would not provide it and tried to change the subject.  Moreover, he did not answer my questions.
> 
> If WinterBorn is credible, then he would have depths of sedimentary layers at Paluxy and evidence of human footprint being dinosaur and not human at his fingertips (preferably from someone other than the Kuban guy who sounds like a nutjobber).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory.   But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy.    It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks.  Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.
> 
> You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons.   I have presented a good deal of scientific research.   The fact that you dismiss it does not change that.  And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.
Click to expand...

who said the layers under it were laid by the flood???

the earth existed before the flood,,,


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur?  If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?
> 
> To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs.  Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal.  The present is the key to the past.
> 
> You showed that you are not credible.  Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs.  This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks.  The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.
> 
> Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.
> 
> The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."
> 
> Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis.  That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.
> 
> What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing.  *Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."  *Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.
Click to expand...


Please provide *The Exact Citation of the Leaky "quote".* 

You did nothing more than cut and paste the "quote" from the charlatan Henry Morris at the ICR. 

Convince readers you're not a fraud and provide *The Exact Citation.*


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.
> 
> You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.



Please, answer my question.  *What sedimentary layer that is "hundreds of feet deep" do you think we are talking about?*

Dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark survived the flood.  One just has to have small ones and representation of base species.

"Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.

The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!

But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe."

Did Dinosaurs Survive the Flood?






The sedimentary layers at Paluxy are not hundreds of feet deep.  I debunked it showing a photo of the depth of the *Cretaceous* layers as not being very deep at all.  The middle layer has the human and dinosaur tracks.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been several pages of discussion of the Paluxy Tracks. If you want to believe they are human tracks, no one is stopping you. I prefer to believe the scientific research that shows them to be dinosaur tracks or carved frauds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers, so what makes you think the color analysis was right?  Do you have a link?  I may have been too late to see that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How far below the tracks does the sedimentary rock extend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you answer my questions?  You are not very reputable like that Kuban guy.  He may have a wealth of information about the Paluxy tracks, but is too biased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What questions?   You said my scientific research was wrong about the depth of the layers.    I thought you might have been mistaken about what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the link for your evidence that the Paluxy tracks are not human, but dinosaur?  If there is irrefutable evidence of human and dinosaur tracks, then would that destroy evolution?
> 
> To me, coelacanth destroyed evolution since it was found living and does not develop legs.  Same with chimps and apes not becoming bipedal.  The present is the key to the past.
> 
> You showed that you are not credible.  Basically, here is terrific evidence of humans and dinosaurs.  This looks like a human foot with dinosaur track (dinosaur hunting human) compared to the Laetoli tracks.  The Laetoli tracks are probably human tracks and not a transition.
> 
> Here is what I read about the Laetoli, "Team members led by paleontologist Mary Leakey stumbled upon animal tracks cemented in the volcanic ash in 1976, but it wasn’t until 1978 that Paul Abell joined Leakey’s team and found the 88ft (27m) long footprint trail referred to now as “The Laetoli Footprints,” which includes about 70 early human footprints.
> 
> The early humans that left these prints were bipedal and had big toes in line with the rest of their foot. This means that these early human feet were more human-like than ape-like, as apes have highly divergent big toes that help them climb and grasp materials like a thumb does. The footprints also show that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hits first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride)—the way modern humans walk."
> 
> Leakey and her team theorized they were transitional and Australopithecus afarensis.  That doesn't quite fit because Au af was likely a chimp.
> 
> What Mary Leakey, who believed in evolution, said is very revealing.  *Since secular/atheist scientists can never observe a particular scenario of human evolution, Leakey said, "all these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense."  *Moreover, Prof. C. Owen Lovejoy who put together the original Au af, Lucy, thinks apes evolved from humans.  It goes to show the actual researchers do not buy into Darwin's common ancestor and tree of life scenarios.
Click to expand...


Yet another fraud with your attribution to Frank Lovejoy.

"People often think we evolved from ancestors that look like apes, but no, apes in some ways evolved from ancestors that look like us," Lovejoy said. "

Professor: Man Did Not Evolve From Chimpanzee-like Apes | Kent State University


One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you said something about them removing layers of sedimentary rock, which you claim debunked my claim about the Paluxy tracks going against the global flood theory. But you never said what the depth of the sedimentary rock is at Paluxy. It is hundreds of feet deep, below the tracks. Which if laid down by the flood, would mean dinos survived the flood.
> 
> You dismiss Glen Kuban for vague reasons. I have presented a good deal of scientific research. The fact that you dismiss it does not change that. And one thing I have not done is attack either you or progressivehunter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, answer my question.  *What sedimentary layer that is "hundreds of feet deep" do you think we are talking about?*
> 
> Dinosaurs on board Noah's Ark survived the flood.  One just has to have small ones and representation of base species.
> 
> "Outside the Ark, marine creatures died by the trillions, but at least some of them survived to continue those "kinds" after the flood, and thus at least some marine "dragons" survived. Sailors have ever since, even up to the present, reported "dragons" at sea. It may be that some are still alive.
> 
> The land and flying dinosaurs could only have survived on the Ark, only to disembark at the end of the flood into a strange and hostile world. We can surmise that the environmental conditions, with the sparse vegetation, the destruction of the pre-flood water canopy, and the temperature extremes during the ensuing Ice Age would have caused many animal types to become extinct, a process which continues today. Evidently the dinosaurs just didn't make it!
> 
> But there is good evidence that they survived at least for awhile. God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod. And the description of "leviathan" (Job 41) seems to imply the kind of huge, fearsome beast reported in many "dragon legends" from every continent around the globe."
> 
> Did Dinosaurs Survive the Flood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sedimentary layers at Paluxy are not hundreds of feet deep.  I debunked it showing a photo of the depth of the *Cretaceous* layers as not being very deep at all.  The middle layer has the human and dinosaur tracks.
Click to expand...


"God's description of the large "behemoth" in Job 40:15-24 sounds remarkably like a large sauropod"

None of the gods ever offered direct commentary in any of the bibles.


----------



## WinterBorn

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that _your_ scientific research fit those of creation?
> 
> "When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.
> 
> The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"
> 
> Dinosaur Tracks
Click to expand...


Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?

Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism?     I can't think of any.    Care to be more specific?


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
> 
> 
> 
> All true, and well said.
> 
> Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
> All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.
> 
> The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical _trust _that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.
> 
> I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.
> 
> Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.

You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.

But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.

Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.

I hope that all makes sense.




Hollie said:


> One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.


Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
> 
> 
> 
> All true, and well said.
> 
> Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
> All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.
> 
> The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical _trust _that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.
> 
> I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.
> 
> Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.
> 
> You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.
> 
> But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.
> 
> Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.
> 
> I hope that all makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.
Click to expand...


I wanted to address your commewnt about morality and guidance for humankind. I would offer that religion absolutely served a purpose in the development of humankind but I think we are in a transition away from the religious beliefs thanks to the ever exploding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. There sometimes is the idea that science and reason are "sterile" but I think that's incorrect. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease?

As to ethics and morality, man's ethics and morality beats out god's by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:

Numbers 31:17-18

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.


I'm not clear on what you mean by _'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived_'.

My perspective of the Biblical god is one that I take issue with. The _only_ "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian based_ idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:

"Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"

I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus _everyone_ being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.


----------



## james bond

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that _your_ scientific research fit those of creation?
> 
> "When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.
> 
> The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"
> 
> Dinosaur Tracks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?
> 
> Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism?     I can't think of any.    Care to be more specific?
Click to expand...


You were trying to fit your argument to to the creation history and failed miserably as you do not understand Noah's Flood and pre-flood humans, creatures, and geology and post-flood humans, creatures, and geology.  The historical and scientific evidence are the facts.  We are trying to show which worldview fits it better and the creation science does a beautiful job.

It makes me wonder if you understand your own time chronology based on sedimentary layers.  What I have shown is humans and dinosaurs made tracks in the Cretaceous layers at Paluxy and the evidence shows that.  The human footprints look more like modern human prints than the much more recent Laetoli foot prints which you admitted are like modern human foot prints.  That's what creation scientists think, too.  They do not think it was made by Au af which was a chimp.  Their gaits are different and one is a knuckle walker.  It shows modern humans and Au af lived around the same time.

I've asked for your your evidence to counter it and have failed to do so once more, so will assume you do not know..  It's past the time I move on.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> james bond said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I presented links to scientific research several times. You just dismissed them as opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that _your_ scientific research fit those of creation?
> 
> "When evolutionary philosophers criticized this historic discovery and claimed that someone must have made the human tracks with a hammer and chisel, a bull-dozer was brought to the site to uncover more of the bed-rock.
> 
> The heavy equipment carefully uncovered more of the Cretaceous bedrock and even more human tracks were discovered with dinosaur tracks! Humans and dinosaurs apparently roamed the earth together!"
> 
> Dinosaur Tracks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, how much deeper does the layer of sedimentary rock go?
> 
> Do I admit my scientific research fits creationism?     I can't think of any.    Care to be more specific?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were trying to fit your argument to to the creation history and failed miserably as you do not understand Noah's Flood and pre-flood humans, creatures, and geology and post-flood humans, creatures, and geology.  The historical and scientific evidence are the facts.  We are trying to show which worldview fits it better and the creation science does a beautiful job.
> 
> It makes me wonder if you understand your own time chronology based on sedimentary layers.  What I have shown is humans and dinosaurs made tracks in the Cretaceous layers at Paluxy and the evidence shows that.  The human footprints look more like modern human prints than the much more recent Laetoli foot prints which you admitted are like modern human foot prints.  That's what creation scientists think, too.  They do not think it was made by Au af which was a chimp.  Their gaits are different and one is a knuckle walker.  It shows modern humans and Au af lived around the same time.
> 
> I've asked for your your evidence to counter it and have failed to do so once more, so will assume you do not know..  It's past the time I move on.
Click to expand...


Thank you. Please move on. I’m convinced you have no no idea of the damage to humanity meted out by the Christian Taliban.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As sentient beings, we are forced by our nature to adhere to some standard of knowledge. What constitutes "knowledge"? When any individual can gainsay a model without stepping up to the plate and showing _why_ their model is true, and _show cause_, and display _testable evidence_ then they are, by definition of what we know knowledge is to be, out of the game. This holds true for all claims, be they of science, or philosophy, or of theism.
> 
> 
> 
> All true, and well said.
> 
> Knowledge isn't understanding. Knowledge isn't wisdom.
> All three require faith. Knowledge requires faith in the human mind. Understanding and wisdom require faith in something more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think I understand your argument but would offer a different perspective toward faith. Both the theist and the materialist require some level or faith or trust (respectively) in order to accept their worldviews are reality. The theist's theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of a divine being who via supernatural means establishes all of reality including the laws of nature and logic which allow for the existence of reality.
> 
> The materialist relies on a priori logic that states that reality is self-caused, and empirical events allow for the existence of knowledge. I have empirical _trust _that the laws of nature operate in ways that are measurable, consistent and predictable. Overwhelming, this is what we see in the reality surrounding us.
> 
> I conclude materialism because in my worldview, it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence -- in fact, gods only add an extra layer of mystery, and one that both materialists and theists alike agree precludes any answering (theists generally agree that their gods are "unknowable, incomprehnsible", etc). I don't see why one would add that extra impossibility to existence, and while presently the materialist is burdened with problems of "what was before existence and how do we prove we know what we know?" it is not impossible to conceive a method would be discovered to put those concerns to rest. The theist admits that his incomprehensible god guarantees no such method is available to mankind.
> 
> Late edit- BTW, I do appreciate the stimulating conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I appreciate the stimulating conversation, too, and am glad that you do.
> 
> Thank you for sharing your perspective, and for doing so clearly and well. I'd like to comment on your third paragraph.
> 
> You say it doesn't help to add the supernatural. I'd ask, "Help with what?" Help humankind in our quest for knowledge? I suppose not, and it's inarguable that at times it's hindered our quest for knowledge. Humankind seeks -- and needs -- more than knowledge, though. One thing we need is a moral code; I believe that Bible-based morality is humankind's best hope for guiding us to our best nature and highest potential.
> 
> But we're talking about the intellectual, not the moral. I mentioned wisdom.Gaining knowledge begins with one accepting that they don't know something. No Deity required. Gaining wisdom begins with humility. Humility requires accepting that one has limitations. On the scale of humankind, ultimate limitations. The empirical can tell us the what and the how; it can never tell us the why. Grasping the why requires wisdom and will perforce lead to the acceptance of (if not necessarily the worship of) a mind greater than the mind of man.
> 
> Of course, none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived. I believe that the simple fact that people seek God (in whatever manner or form) demonstrates the reality of God. If there wasn't something higher in us, why would we ever seek anything higher? If, indeed, "it does not help to add the supernatural to the overall questions regarding existence" then why have we added it, for ages, everywhere? Because the why matters to us. Without a God, there is no answer to why. Without a God -- a real and imminent Higher Power -- there's no asking the question why.
> 
> I hope that all makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the truly disturbing attributes of religious extremists is their willing to commit fraud and dishonesty to press their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed. The same thing can be said of anti-theist extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wanted to address your commewnt about morality and guidance for humankind. I would offer that religion absolutely served a purpose in the development of humankind but I think we are in a transition away from the religious beliefs thanks to the ever exploding, impossible-to-refute success of science and technology. There sometimes is the idea that science and reason are "sterile" but I think that's incorrect. The Universe is eminently explicable in Natural terms; obviously not every mystery has been penetrated, but many things that were beyond our understanding 50 years ago are now commonly accepted facts. This has been the history of humanity. Why should we assume such intellectual evolution will cease?
> 
> As to ethics and morality, man's ethics and morality beats out god's by light-years. God tacitly and obviously approves of slavery (Jesus speaks of servants to a Master and never thinks to condemn the injustice of one man owning another)-- man finds it repulsive. God not only approves of war, he ignites them left and right -- man creates a United Nations in an attempt to stop war. God commits genocide without blinking an eye -- man imprisons mass murderers and is repulsed by wanton slaughter. God not only approves of raping young women, he specifically rewards his soldiers with them:
> 
> Numbers 31:17-18
> 
> 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
> 
> 
> I'm not clear on what you mean by _'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived_'.
> 
> My perspective of the Biblical god is one that I take issue with. The _only_ "condemning aspect" of my life is the _Christian based_ idea that as an imperfect being I deserve Hell by default. I'm fairly honest, I work hard, I love my friends and family, etc.-- in short, I'm your average person who lives a quiet life dealing with life's challenges. I cannot imagine rating eternal torment because I don't acquiesce to the Christian / Islamic- defined salvation program. I ask myself:
> 
> "Which is more likely: That there's really this angry god out there who would actually behave that way, or it's really in the religion’s interest to establish a social dynamic where the threat of _eternal torment_ is the outcome for not joining in that religion and btw supporting it financially. What's more likely, man needs a savior for being human, or the Church, an entity of sweeping power for more than a thousand years, needs to convince me I need them and only them?"
> 
> I think the answer is really obvious and simple. If such a thing is the reality (and of course there's no evidence for such) then I'll have to "account for my actions". But my worst "crime" in this realm is being imperfect and not believing that which I find is not supported. I can do nothing about such a god who would condemn me for such a trivial issue, nor can I do anything about the fact (my term) that after death it's nothing but a dreamless sleep. Both are equally depressing, hopeless, and bleak, and there's a marginal difference between condemning most people who ever existed to an eternity of despair versus _everyone_ being condemned to an eternity of nothingness. It's hopeless because if such a god exists, there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego or be consigned to everlasting torment.
Click to expand...

You seem like a very thoughful person who's given this matter serious consideration. Thank you again for the well considered reply and the stimulating conversation.

What I meant by 'none of this requires the existence of a Biblical God; only that a Creator God be conceived' is that the moral code and the humility I spoke of require belief in a higher power but don't require the actual existence of a higher power.

I agree with your first paragraph but don't feel that the transition away from religious beliefs is a positive development. The success of science has definitely led the West away from religiosity, as you noted. It needn't have and shouldn't have been so. Biblical religion was never meant to explain the universe; it was meant to guide us on how to live in it. Science can teach us how things operate but not how we should operate. The technology science gives us help us live better in the material sense but does nothing to help us live better in the moral sense. I'd argue that it's done just the opposite, making us more self-centered, materialistic, and hedonistic.

Intending no disrespect: What you said about God's ethics and morality relative to man's is inaccurate...

The idea that God approves of slavery is a commonly held misconception. In the world of the Middle East 3500 years ago, any god that demanded a complete cessation of all forms of involuntary servitude would have been rejected completely, just as one that demanded an end to all animal sacrifice. Then, slavery was universal, and slaves were treated as nothing more than property that could be treated however an owner wished -- killed, raped, tortured, anything -- and having no rights at all. Into this world, God ended the ownership of people as property, permitting only indentured servitude. (The word translated as "slave" doesn't have the same meaning as the English word; it connotes only service to another, not ownership by another.) Indenture was limited to a maximum of 7 years. "Slaves" had rights; they could not be separated from their spouses or children, could not be raped or sexually abused in any way, had to have their needs provided for, could not be maimed, and so on. It was an enormous leap in humanity and compassion.

Meanwhile, humanity most certainly does not find slavery at all repulsive, as you said. Slavery, in the sense of the English word and in it's most repulsive form, is alive and flourishing in much of the world. Even in the West where involuntary servitude is illegal, many employed workers are treated with far less compassion than what the Bible commands regarding "slaves." Just one instance of what I mean: Not too long ago, when company presidents or CEOs went to church every week and had some fear of God in their hearts, most felt some obligation toward their employees, even to those at the lowest level. They were provided with living wages, medical insurance, pensions for their old age, and as much security with the company as possible. Now, when we've transitioned away from belief in the morality and ideas of justice and compassion the Bible demands, none of that is so and employees' livelihoods are taken away by layoffs with no regard for their well-being. The treatment of "slaves" God demanded beats out modern man's ethics and morality by light years, if I may turn your own phrase.

Regarding your other example, with God condoning or even commanding war, wanton murder and genocide, and rape, you're off-base. What you cited was a specific command to the Israelites regarding the tribe of Amalek. First, a command to wipe out a single tribe among the Canaanite people is in no way genocide. Moreover, that tribe manifested all the worst in humanity. It attacked the Israelites, thus warring against them was defensive. It targeted the children, the elderly, and the infirm in it's initial attack. It's practices were the most base of pagan religions, including child sacrifice to their gods. War is always awful; sometimes, it's justified and necessary. The slaughter commanded is horrific to our sensibilities but a quick death by the sword was far more compassionate that what the defeated typically suffered at the hands of the victor in that time and place.

As far as the rape you say God approved, reading further in the Bible tells us that was precisely not the case. Everywhere then, most places now, and in the West right through World War II, rape of the defeated's women was considered among the standard spoils of war. In this Biblical lesson, the women could be taken back to Israelite territory but not touched until after a period of time, during which they were permitted to mourn and had to be made undesirable physically (shaved head and such). Only after this were the men given the option of lying with them, upon which they had to be given the status of either wives or concubines with all the rights and privileges that came with it. Again, an enormous leap forward in compassion and morality and a lesson for all time to temper our zeal in wiping out evil -- as God commands of all His followers -- with compassion.

Your example was of one war with specific, exceptional circumstances. Let's look at the war of conquest waged by the Israelites when they took the land of Canaan. In that time and place, conquerors wiped out and exiled inhabitants of defeated territory with impunity. Joshua and the Israelites were commanded to offer all the tribes of Canaan the choice either to live in peace among them while obeying Israelite laws or to migrate. Only if they chose to fight could Israel war against them. When war was made, the environment was to be protected and all survivors of the defeated were to be integrated with the community of Israel. If only warfare in our modern world, where so many feel we've moved past the need for religion, were that compassionate.

And all this from only the Old Testament, without the added demand for universal compassion and love that permeates the New Testament.

If one believes in a living God imminent in this world, that God guides humanity forward. The Biblical religion of the ancient Hebrews was a major step in the evolution of human morality. Christianity another. The process continues forward, building on that foundation. There's a reason the Old Testament came when and where it did; it was then and there that humanity was ready to make that leap. Ditto the New Testament. Humanity proceeds from there.

As to the rest of your reply:

I don't know why you label God an "angry god" when throughout the Bible God's anger is only ever a response to man's immoral actions, always is accompanied by God's regret, and always followed by God's forgiveness and mercy.

While it's true that some streams of Christianity maintain that one must belong to the Church or suffer eternal torment, that's not fundamental to Christianity and not a universally held position by any means. For most, it's faith and behavior that determine the fate of one's eternal soul. Being an imperfect human being doesn't condemn the soul to eternal torment -- not in my Christian belief. Your stated concept of what follows death for everyone seems to me the cruel alternative. You said yourself that it's depressing, hopeless, and bleak. Only those who wallow in or celebrate their imperfection are condemned, and then only if until their last, dying breath they don't repent of it. Those who strive to overcome the worst in themselves -- no matter their religion but within the framework of Biblical morality -- are saved.

That the powerful people in the early Church attempted to manipulate the illiterate masses is an instance of the powerful behaving then as the powerful do now. Neither is exemplary of Biblical morality.

You say that if the God of the Bible exists there is no sense in morality, no true justice, and basically we are nothing but minions created to worship an infinite Ego. I say exactly the opposite: If the God of the Bible does not exist, there's no sense in morality. If the God of the Bible exists, to try and live morally is the goal set for us by our Creator, what constitutes morality has been told to us by Him, and the effort is rewarded. If the God of the Bible does not exist, there is no justice, because the evil and the good share the same fate and what is just in this world is determined by only the people with the power. If the God of the Bible exists, there is ultimate justice for the good and the evil despite what we from our human perspective may see contrary. If the God of the Bible does not exist, we are basically nothing but slaves to our base, animal desires and our own egos rather than human beings with the breath of the Divine inside us, guided and loved and cherished by our Creator and striving to be the best we can be for Him and for humanity.

You say you're basically a good person. I've no doubt you are. Can you be a better person? If you would say no, I'd ask what ego are you worshiping? If you say yes, why would you bother trying to be better? We don't need "a Savior for being human." We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.


Clearly we don't, as our moral and ethical improvement over the millenia has come from secular ideas and has come in spite of religion. We need less religion and more intellectualism.


----------



## Capri

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a Savior to help us become the best humans we can be.
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly we don't, as our moral and ethical improvement over the millenia has come from secular ideas and has come in spite of religion. We need less religion and more intellectualism.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that religion and intellectualism are mutually exclusive. We could use more of both.

It's my belief that the moral and ethical improvement of humankind over the millennia has been a direct result of Biblical religion. Perhaps you could offer an example or two to illustrate your perspective; that might help frame the conversation, if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> We could use more of both.


Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
Click to expand...



well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,

you have your religion and they have theirs,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
Click to expand...

For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....


----------



## progressive hunter

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....
Click to expand...



well I'm right,,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well I'm right,,,,
Click to expand...


Life never came from a rock,,,,

That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,

It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well I'm right,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life never came from a rock,,,,
> 
> That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,
> 
> It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,
Click to expand...



OK youre right,,,

its a rock soup,,,


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well I'm right,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life never came from a rock,,,,
> 
> That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,
> 
> It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK youre right,,,
> 
> its a rock soup,,,
Click to expand...


People point and laugh at you for a reason,,,,


----------



## DOTR

fncceo said:


> Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.
> 
> List of flood myths - Wikipedia
> 
> This could be for two reasons ...
> 
> a) a global flood occurred
> 
> Or, more likely,
> 
> b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)
> 
> Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia



Little more than surface similarities and most of them aping Christianity.


----------



## Capri

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
Click to expand...

There's abundant evidence for the existence a Creator Force. There's no proof but there's definitely evidence. I reiterate: Religion and intellectualism aren't mutually exclusive. More intellectualism would bring better understanding of our world. More religion would bring better treatment of each other.



DOTR said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Flood myths are quite common in ancient cultures around the world.
> 
> List of flood myths - Wikipedia
> 
> This could be for two reasons ...
> 
> a) a global flood occurred
> 
> Or, more likely,
> 
> b) It's a great story and one that people were eager to integrate into their oral histories (like resurrection stories)
> 
> Dying-and-rising deity - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Little more than surface similarities and most of them aping Christianity.
Click to expand...

What makes the Biblical flood story distinct is it's emphasis on morality. Immorality brings the destruction. Morality brings salvation from destruction, not only for the individual but for all life on Earth.
Most likely, myths developed around an actual occurrence. Ancient peoples created stories; Genesis presents a lesson in the ultimate importance of moral behavior and the grave consequences of the alternative.


----------



## Hollie

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abaolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well you believe we came from a rock with no evidence,,,,
> 
> you have your religion and they have theirs,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the love of god, would somebody PLEASE give this poor troll some attention? I can't seem to scrape him off of my shoe....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> well I'm right,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Life never came from a rock,,,,
> 
> That’s a nonsense slogan you spam multiple threads with,,,,
> 
> It displays a profound, willful ignorance on your part,,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OK youre right,,,
> 
> its a rock soup,,,
Click to expand...


Apparently,,,, you’re not concerned with making yourself the subject of ridicule,,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> There's abundant evidence for the existence a Creator Force.


There is none. Not a shred. But i do notice your new use term "creator force". The goalposts are already moving, as you sense you are inching closer to being asked for your "evidence".



Capri said:


> More religion would bring better treatment of each other.


No. Less religion would better accomplish that. As it has in modern, western society. Get rid of Islam...poof, the world is instantly better. No more Judaism or Islam? Peace in the middle east wouldn't be far behind.


----------



## james bond

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
Click to expand...


Nah, you're usually wrong.  I'll go with both.


----------



## james bond

I think a lot of abiogenesis and primordial is still based on Miller-Urey experiments which required constant lightning strikes.

"The Miller-Urey experiment required constant lightning strikes. While lightning was very common on early Earth, it wasn't constant. This means that although making amino acids and organic molecules was possible, it most likely did not happen as quickly or in the large amounts that the experiment showed. This does not, in itself, disprove the hypothesis. Just because the process would have taken longer than the lab simulation suggests does not negate the fact building blocks could have been made. It may not have happened in a week, but the Earth was around for more than a billion years before known life was formed. That was certainly within the timeframe for the creation of life.

A more serious possible issue with the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment is that scientists are now finding evidence that the atmosphere of early Earth was not exactly the same as Miller and Urey simulated in their experiment. There was likely much less methane in the atmosphere during Earth's early years than previously thought. Since methane was the source of carbon in the simulated atmosphere, that would reduce the number of organic molecules even further.

What Is Primordial Soup?

What is a coincidence is the Bible states Satan fell to Earth like lightning.


----------



## Hollie

james bond said:


> I think a lot of abiogenesis and primordial is still based on Miller-Urey experiments which required constant lightning strikes.
> 
> "The Miller-Urey experiment required constant lightning strikes. While lightning was very common on early Earth, it wasn't constant. This means that although making amino acids and organic molecules was possible, it most likely did not happen as quickly or in the large amounts that the experiment showed. This does not, in itself, disprove the hypothesis. Just because the process would have taken longer than the lab simulation suggests does not negate the fact building blocks could have been made. It may not have happened in a week, but the Earth was around for more than a billion years before known life was formed. That was certainly within the timeframe for the creation of life.
> 
> A more serious possible issue with the Miller-Urey primordial soup experiment is that scientists are now finding evidence that the atmosphere of early Earth was not exactly the same as Miller and Urey simulated in their experiment. There was likely much less methane in the atmosphere during Earth's early years than previously thought. Since methane was the source of carbon in the simulated atmosphere, that would reduce the number of organic molecules even further.
> 
> What Is Primordial Soup?
> 
> What is a coincidence is the Bible states Satan fell to Earth like lightning.



What a coincidence that science understands the natural forces that produce lightning. We don’t need to let fear and superstition lead us to believe that angry gods are punishing humanity.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> We could use more of both.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. The human race needs LESS "belief without evidence", not more.
Click to expand...








You apparently believe that mankind's morals and ethics without religion are better when the very nature and history of mankind belies that.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Capri

alang1216 said:


> (Example of: we don't know how we got from point A to point B so it must be God)





alang1216 said:


> (Example of: we can't do this ourselves so it must be God)


If you're going to wedge everything into one of you're very broad categories, which you've predetermined are inherently insufficient, no evidence will ever be of interest to you. That may be your intent. The examples are of intelligent design and intelligence within the universe.

Your approach to dismissing evidence for God and justifying your non-belief is essentially to establish that there is no God a priori: "We don't understand how or why, the existence of an intelligent creator would explain it, but there is no intelligent creator, therefore an intelligent creator isn't the explanation."



alang1216 said:


> Whoever says this either doesn't understand natural selection, statistics/probability, or both.


No offence intended, but the scientists and statisticians who said it probably know more about natural selection and probability than you or I.



alang1216 said:


> Do you have any examples of consciousness being outside the physical body?


They're all over the place and have been for ages. Most of us dismiss them as supernatural, metaphysical, superstitious hooey, and most or all of them probably are. Either way, it's not relevant to the point I was making:
The human brain has been neurologically mapped in fine detail. Never has consciousness been located. It's nowhere in our neural network, as far as modern neuroscience knows, yet it exists. This, just this fact, all by itself, is evidence of consciousness being outside the physical body. It's also evidence that consciousness didn't develop through the random mutation of brain cells.



alang1216 said:


> If mind is also not separate from space-time or e=mc2 matter, it would explain much in particle physics. (Example of: ???) I have no clue what you're claiming or why you're claiming it. Clarification?


Atomic particles exhibit awareness. No one knows how that's possible. An intelligence within the universe would explain it.
I can't do more on an online forum than give some examples in brief. If you're not familiar with developments in quantum physics and are sincerely interested in exploring the topic,  the two best introductions for non-cientists I can suggest are "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder and "What The bleep Do We Know" by William Arntz.

My contention here is that there's evidence of intelligent design in the universe. I've presented sound reasoning and supported examples, with references cited. The three arguing in opposition have basically presented three positions:
- "No there isn't. You're an idiot and a liar and so's everyone who believes as you"
- "There is no intelligent designer so there's no evidence for an intelligent designer"
- "There no definitive proof of an intelligent creator, there is or may someday be other explanations for the evidence that might indicate one, and there's stuff in the Bible that bothers me, so I don't believe in an Intelligent Creator""

The first isn't an argument but only contradiction, ignorance, and aggression.
The second is an unsupported conclusion permitting no real debate.
The third is a reasonable position and makes for some interesting conversation but ultimately demands what can't be given.

How about we give y'all an opportunity to actually present solid and pertinent arguments...
Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator. The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this.

Convince me otherwise.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Example of: we don't know how we got from point A to point B so it must be God)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Example of: we can't do this ourselves so it must be God)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're going to wedge everything into one of you're very broad categories, which you've predetermined are inherently insufficient, no evidence will ever be of interest to you. That may be your intent. The examples are of intelligent design and intelligence within the universe.
> 
> Your approach to dismissing evidence for God and justifying your non-belief is essentially to establish that there is no God a priori: "We don't understand how or why, the existence of an intelligent creator would explain it, but there is no intelligent creator, therefore an intelligent creator isn't the explanation."
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whoever says this either doesn't understand natural selection, statistics/probability, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence intended, but the scientists and statisticians who said it probably know more about natural selection and probability than you or I.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples of consciousness being outside the physical body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're all over the place and have been for ages. Most of us dismiss them as supernatural, metaphysical, superstitious hooey, and most or all of them probably are. Either way, it's not relevant to the point I was making:
> The human brain has been neurologically mapped in fine detail. Never has consciousness been located. It's nowhere in our neural network, as far as modern neuroscience knows, yet it exists. This, just this fact, all by itself, is evidence of consciousness being outside the physical body. It's also evidence that consciousness didn't develop through the random mutation of brain cells.
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If mind is also not separate from space-time or e=mc2 matter, it would explain much in particle physics. (Example of: ???) I have no clue what you're claiming or why you're claiming it. Clarification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Atomic particles exhibit awareness. No one knows how that's possible. An intelligence within the universe would explain it.
> I can't do more on an online forum than give some examples in brief. If you're not familiar with developments in quantum physics and are sincerely interested in exploring the topic,  the two best introductions for non-cientists I can suggest are "The Hidden Face of God" by Gerard Schroeder and "What The bleep Do We Know" by William Arntz.
> 
> My contention here is that there's evidence of intelligent design in the universe. I've presented sound reasoning and supported examples, with references cited. The three arguing in opposition have basically presented three positions:
> - "No there isn't. You're an idiot and a liar and so's everyone who believes as you"
> - "There is no intelligent designer so there's no evidence for an intelligent designer"
> - "There no definitive proof of an intelligent creator, there is or may someday be other explanations for the evidence that might indicate one, and there's stuff in the Bible that bothers me, so I don't believe in an Intelligent Creator""
> 
> The first isn't an argument but only contradiction, ignorance, and aggression.
> The second is an unsupported conclusion permitting no real debate.
> The third is a reasonable position and makes for some interesting conversation but ultimately demands what can't be given.
> 
> How about we give y'all an opportunity to actually present solid and pertinent arguments...
> Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator. The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this.
> 
> Convince me otherwise.
Click to expand...


One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature. 

The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy. 

Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong. 

Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof. 

I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.


All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god. All religions make this claim. I see nothing that advances your claim above the others.

Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars. Faith on the other hand ... well, I think I'll let the more courageous souls here trailblaze that watery path across the sea. When it comes to "evidence of things unseen" ... the examples devolve quickly into personal experience, which, by the way forms the basis of my comments ... but that'll wait.

Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.

We both have our _a priori_ assumptions (everyone does), and though some may accuse me of it, I am not dogmatic in the least! I recognize and in fact trumpet the fluid nature of science, that knowledge grows and changes and tomorrow facts we think we know may get re-written. I find that exhilarating, not oppressive. But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is _just as likely to be changed_ as any tenet of science.

You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:

You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.

Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".

The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence _is_ at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So _still_ the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.


Agreed.
Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.



Hollie said:


> The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
> Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
> This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.


Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.



Hollie said:


> Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
> I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.


Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.



Hollie said:


> All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.


It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.

I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.

Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.



Hollie said:


> Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.


Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.



Hollie said:


> the examples devolve quickly into personal experience


Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.



Hollie said:


> Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.


Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.



Hollie said:


> But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.


I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.



Hollie said:


> You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:
> 
> You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.


Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't. 

I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.

By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.



Hollie said:


> Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".


You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.



Hollie said:


> The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.


If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.

I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
> Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
> This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
> I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.
> 
> I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.
> 
> Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the examples devolve quickly into personal experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:
> 
> You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.
> 
> By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.
> 
> I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.
Click to expand...


Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities. 

Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “_therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, _there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, _testable_ argument. 

There is a human tendency to create gods / intelligent designers. Human history has shown that as knowledge increases, the role of those gods has diminished with most of those gods being relegated to being superfluous and now, looked upon as mere myth and legend. While great Hindu philosophers have done more with mathematics, great Greek pantheistic philosophers more with medicine, great Buddhist (and Taoist) philosophers more with chemistry …. every last one of them has been superseded by entirely secular scholars as the boundaries of knowledge have been pushed back by specialized researchers. 

The day of the pre-eminent religious/philosophical/scientific polymath has come and gone. I don't call it good or bad. I call it truth.

There’s no reason _not_ to conclude that existence could simply be an ongoing proces infinite in both directions. BTW, this is a naturalistic explanation for something theists are quite content to accept supernaturally, i.e., that their gods exist as an infinity. So there's nothing about the naturalistic paradigm that the theist doesn't already embrace. There is no evidence though that requires one to add sentience and other anthropomorphic attributes to the infinite nature of nature. Therefore, the theistic worldview unnecessarily complicates a simple concept in order to assign the infinite nature with a quasi-comforting personality.

There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
> Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
> This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
> I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.
> 
> I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.
> 
> Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the examples devolve quickly into personal experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:
> 
> You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.
> 
> By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.
> 
> I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities.
> 
> Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “_therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, _there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, _testable_ argument.
> 
> ...
> 
> There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.
Click to expand...

My position doesn't presume an intelligent designer. My position is that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
I haven't asked anyone to disprove that there's an intelligent designer. I've asked for a refutation of my assertion that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
There are an ample number of discoveries about the natural world which suggest a supernatural cause. I've noted several and supported them with examples of observed, tested, and documented phenomena, and included references from credentialed scientists to those and more examples.  This evidence is reason not to conclude that existence is simply a natural process.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the mistakes made by theists Is to attach human attributes to their gods as they attach human attributes to nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> Intelligence and consciousness are the two human attributes I suggested are shared by the Creator. They're non-physical attributes. Their presence in the universe suggests their presence in a Creator. I've argued nothing more than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statement : “Resolved: The universe exists, therefore it was created, and therefore it had a creator.” Is a classic fallacy.
> Similarly, the statement: “The universe contains complexity, sophistication, intelligence, and consciousness; therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent. There is nothing in modern science that disproves this”
> This is another classic fallacy used by theists in that they insist they are correct until proven wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay. You've identified my view as fallacious. You haven't presented support for that position.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can counter the “prove it isn’t” challenge with “yes, science disproves you claim. Disprove it”. I am using your standards of disproof. Since I have disproof of your claims, it falls to you to disprove my disproof.
> I’m just holding you to your own “standard”, such as it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you are. However, it's not my standard but the one demanded of me here. I just turned it around to give those who's views differ from mine the opportunity to advance their positions.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your testimony presupposes that your god is the true god.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't. Nothing I've posted here presupposes that at all.
> 
> I've intentionally avoided the use of "God" as much as I could in favor of "Intelligent Creator" and similar terms, trying to restrict "God" to when we've discussed Biblical morality and then only in the context of Scripture, which obviously, presupposed the existence of the Scriptural God.
> 
> Most of what I've seen in this thread presupposes the non-existence of a Creator Intelligence and offers no argument to support that supposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big bang, evolution, science ... these are all things I can source with reasoned, written arguments from well-considered, peer reviewed scholars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. I contend that none of that disproves the existence of an intelligent creator. No one has yet shown otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> the examples devolve quickly into personal experience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not one example of evidence for an intelligent creator force that I've given has been from personal experience. All have been observed, real-world phenomena as documented by credentialed scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the new revelation illuminate the old, cast aside prejudices, the truth can stand the closest scrutiny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well said! That's precisely what I've been trying to accomplish here.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But theists are the ones who believe in a less or not-at-all fluidity of their worldviews. And if anything aggravates me, it's theists who do not realize their "immutable word" -- in reality -- is just as likely to be changed as any tenet of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm quite sure I've already spoken here of a living and imminent Deity that guides the evolution of human understanding. You assume all theists are the same when there's actually a breadth of viewpoints.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You find cohesion into assigning to the ultimate level a personable, intelligent being who authored things to be as they are. The flaw I have with that faith is that it turns around on itself:
> 
> You are arguing that intelligence and order cannot come out of nature, and so it needs to have come from an ordered/intelligent metaphysical being. But you premise collapses from its assertion because you are left with having to account for the intelligence that has sprung up out of nature in any event. You are saying your problem is solved by your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thought I'd already addressed that. Maybe I didn't.
> 
> I'm not arguing that intelligence or order cannot come out of nature; I'm arguing that nature's order and intelligence is evidence of a creator and that the presence of intelligence, consciousness, and mind in the universe can't -- at least, as yet -- be accounted for by natural selection or any biological or physical process.
> 
> By definition, the creator intelligence didn't spring up out of nature. By definition, it is the creator of nature, matter, energy, and time and, therefore, cannot be of any of those things. Asking who created God or asserting that it takes matter energy, and time to create anything so there's no creator of matter, energy, and time is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire "God" concept.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now in fact that is totally fine with me-- I'm not here to tell you, you are wrong about embracing that belief, anymore than I am wrong embracing the fact that it's not needed that there be a "designer".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never said that I was wrong for holding my belief, nor have I seen you do so with others. That's appreciated and I've tried to be equally as courteous.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second problem with the assertion is that even if intelligence is at the core, that doesn't support a contention of a gods or any sort of eternal being. It still doesn't account for an approachable, loving, involved god, nor does it account for the Judeo-Christian gods-- it could be any number of gods, or ones that haven't been con-or-perceived yet, or it could have been a "god" with a limited lifespan (and is now dead). So still the atheist has cause (good cause in fact) to not embrace the theistic paradigm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If intelligence is at the core of the universe, it supports (doesn't prove but supports) the contention that there is or was an intelligence that created it.
> 
> I respect you and enjoy talking with you about this, Hollie, so please don't take it as a negative comment about you or your opinion when I say that you haven't addressed my argument other than to contradict it, restate portions of of your position that don't really address it, and misrepresent the views I've expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ultimately, I can’t address the theistic position that presumes one or more gods / intelligent designers and requires that others disprove such entities.
> 
> Writing for myself only, I don’t presuppose the non-existence of a “creator Intelligence”. The positive assertion of something falls to the presenter to support the claim. So, when the statement is made: “_therefore, it's creator is conscious and intelligent”, _there is an obligation of the part of the claimant to provide a supported, _testable_ argument.
> 
> ...
> 
> There has never been a discovery about the natural world which suggested a supernatural cause. I don't have any reason to presuppose that intelligence and a sentient sense of “self” has sprung up out of nature, I accept the evidence that existence has naturalistic underpinnings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position doesn't presume an intelligent designer. My position is that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
> I haven't asked anyone to disprove that there's an intelligent designer. I've asked for a refutation of my assertion that there's evidence in nature for an intelligent designer.
> There are an ample number of discoveries about the natural world which suggest a supernatural cause. I've noted several and supported them with examples of observed, tested, and documented phenomena, and included references from credentialed scientists to those and more examples.  This evidence is reason not to conclude that existence is simply a natural process.
Click to expand...


If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence? It’s not the role of a disbeliever to disprove what is not supported. I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer. How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer? Can you link to some peer reviewed data? 

How do we examine the hierarchy of supernatural designers who designed the subordinate designer? I think you can see I’m being facetious here but why presume one intelligent designer when none are needed and a logical presumption to an intelligent designer is a hierarchical structure of designers.

We know that gods have tended to breed when mankind needed explanations for natural phenomenon (but had none). We know that various cultures have invented various gods / designers who controlled various aspects of existence. Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Hollie said:


> If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?


Because there actually is none. Once you get past the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults, the evidence presented will be, "Just open your eyes, it's all around you!". Every time.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of attempt intelligent discussion.

*****SMILE*****


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Damaged Eagle said:


> That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of


Damn you are such a crybaby. For an insulting fuck, you sure have some thin skin. 

And i ridicule your magical nonsense. Since you have nothing to support it except "because I say so", you take this ridicule as a personal attack. That's YOUR problem, not mine, crybaby.


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?


Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times. I've also given, multiple times, information on where to read about more such evidence.



Hollie said:


> I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer.


You could read about them. Maybe try one of the books I've cited several times.



Hollie said:


> How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer?


*sigh* There is no test for supernatural design, obviously. As I've said and said again, and again, and again: Observed, tested, and documented phenomena in biology and physics that, at this time, are not understood, can be explained by the existence of intelligent design. I gave examples, referenced those examples, and gave sources for more examples. This is evidence of an intelligent creator. No one so far has refuted this.



Hollie said:


> Can you link to some peer reviewed data?


As I've said, multiple times, the information I've presented comes from books. I gave their titles, authors, and links to them at booksellers.




Hollie said:


> Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?


Yes, but that's not the point under consideration. I'll be happy to discuss it another time if you'd like.
The point under consideration right now is whether there exists evidence of an intelligent creator in our universe.
Where we stand on this right now is that I've asserted that there is, presented some examples of that evidence, referenced detailed treatments of those examples and further examples, and offered the opportunity for anyone to counter the assertion. No counter has been offered or attempted. Evasion and deflection and refusal to acknowledge information already presented no more constitute a refutation or counter argument than the contradiction and browbeating that are one of your fellow nonbeliever's stock-in-trade.

If you'd like to concede the point, drop it, and move on, that would be fine. I'm sure we can have stimulating conversations about other, related topics. 
If anyone else would like to address the point, that would be great, too.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Capri said:


> Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times.


No, you have presented none at all. Saying you have evidence is not evidence.


----------



## Hollie

Capri said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there is evidence for an intelligent designer, why not present that evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times. I've also given, multiple times, information on where to read about more such evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never seen such “observed, tested, and documented phenomena” that point to a supernatural designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could read about them. Maybe try one of the books I've cited several times.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would anyone test for supernatural design, designed by a supernatural designer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *sigh* There is no test for supernatural design, obviously. As I've said and said again, and again, and again: Observed, tested, and documented phenomena in biology and physics that, at this time, are not understood, can be explained by the existence of intelligent design. I gave examples, referenced those examples, and gave sources for more examples. This is evidence of an intelligent creator. No one so far has refuted this.
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you link to some peer reviewed data?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I've said, multiple times, the information I've presented comes from books. I gave their titles, authors, and links to them at booksellers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you identify what separates and makes preeminent the western versions of gods / creators vs. the others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, but that's not the point under consideration. I'll be happy to discuss it another time if you'd like.
> The point under consideration right now is whether there exists evidence of an intelligent creator in our universe.
> Where we stand on this right now is that I've asserted that there is, presented some examples of that evidence, referenced detailed treatments of those examples and further examples, and offered the opportunity for anyone to counter the assertion. No counter has been offered or attempted. Evasion and deflection and refusal to acknowledge information already presented no more constitute a refutation or counter argument than the contradiction and browbeating that are one of your fellow nonbeliever's stock-in-trade.
> 
> If you'd like to concede the point, drop it, and move on, that would be fine. I'm sure we can have stimulating conversations about other, related topics.
> If anyone else would like to address the point, that would be great, too.
Click to expand...


I’m afraid we have different standards for a supportable argument. A relatively obscure author who writes a book claiming “proof” for a supernatural designer (and makes a profit on those books), is far different than a researcher who submits a body of work to a science journal for peer review.

A book is no more “proof” of a supernatural entity than someone who will gainsay an argument and fail to offer testable evidence. The books written by the author you referenced earlier present a philosophical argument that appeals to a religious commitment but is not defendable in the realm of peer reviewed science. Philosophy (as it’s employed by those to support a religious belief) is among the most hopeless of positions that can be used to argue the mechanics of religion. It delivers essentially nothing of true utility. It can be used to support virtually any position since it ultimately has no obligation to be true.


----------



## Capri

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Capri said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie, I HAVE presented that evidence. Several examples of it, multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have presented none at all. Saying you have evidence is not evidence.
Click to expand...

Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?
Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?
et al


----------



## Capri

Hollie said:


> claiming “proof” for a supernatural designe


Evidence. Not proof; evidence. Fact-based evidence.


Hollie said:


> I’m afraid we have different standards for a supportable argument.


So be it. I look forward to stimulating conversations with you on other topics.


----------



## Capri

Articles and links to further reading presenting evidence in support of intelligent design:
Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design
Science, Evidence, and Research | Intelligent Design
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design
Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science | Evolution News
How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"? | Evolution News
Scientists Prove Again that Life is the Result of Intelligent Design

Peer-reviewed papers in peer-edited scientific journals supporting intelligent design as of July, 2017:
https://www.discovery.org/m/2018/12/ID-Peer-Review-July-2017.pdf


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's supposedly contrary to the prancing and dancing and flowery word salads and insults presented as evidence by some enlightened SJW who believes his atheistic stance is the only truth and only wants to insult those who believe in God instead of
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you are such a crybaby. For an insulting fuck, you sure have some thin skin.
> 
> And i ridicule your magical nonsense. Since you have nothing to support it except "because I say so", you take this ridicule as a personal attack. That's YOUR problem, not mine, crybaby.
Click to expand...







Did I address you??? No. It would seem you're the one with thin skin. Do you feel personally attacked in your supposed enlightenment at the alter of scientific consensus. Perhaps if you get enough scientists singing together they'll come up with enough people to support their theories instead of demanding others take them at their word. Last time I checked though that's not how a theory is proven to hold validity. Just as taking you at your word is like listening to the underwear boy sitting in his momma's basement. Have you saved those unicorns from the flood waters yet so you can have a rainbow?

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------

