# Question about Noah.



## Taz (Oct 12, 2014)

If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 12, 2014)

The Tower of Babel, of course. When God made everyone speak different languages, He also made them all different races and sent them all over the world.

When a story simply doesn't make sense, just insert the phrase "God did it" and it'll all work out.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 12, 2014)

If we believe some, we are all the descendents of drunken incest but yeah, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics - Where did they come from. 

Since the bible thumpers don't believe in evolution, they can't say they just evolved. 

Steven_R is right. Just say "god moves in mysterious ways". It covers everything.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



Here's the answer to the question:

*Genesis 6:19*_*, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."*_

Two of EVERY FLESH, male and female.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 12, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...



No, that does not address the question of where various ethnicities came from after god drowned everyone except drunken Noah and his family.

Noah and his family were not "of every sort".


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 12, 2014)

Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female."

So which is it, two of every clean animal or fourteen of every clean animal?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Oct 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



Actually the better question would be where did the Blonde Hair Blue eye people came from?

Do you believe Noah was white?


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 12, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Of course it does. See blacks and yellows and reds and browns aren't really people after all, just the blonde haired, blue eyed whites. So the takeaway is that Noah and sons are people, minorities aren't and thus racism and slavery and genocide aren't really crimes against people at all because minorities aren't people.

The Bible has all the answers.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Noah and his family were direct descendants of Adam (formed on the 8th day). The other races were created on the 6th day.  Know your Bible before addressing it.  

The Command to take "two of every flesh" is crystal clear.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 12, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Finally a breath of fresh air on these forums. You actually get it, good for you.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



*Genesis 1:27*_*, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."*_

Things to note about the above verse:

a) God created males and females (note the plural).
b) God created males and females simultaneously.
c) God "created" them.  Keep the word "created" in mind.  That's to say that they were created fiat by the power of His Word.

Then we have the account of Adam and how he was "formed" (note the word "formed" which is different than "created") from the dust (a pre-existing substance).

*Genesis 2:7*_*, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."*_

"Created" = the Hebrew word "bara'" Stong's Concordance word #H1254
"Formed" = the Hebrew word "yatsar" Strong's Concordance word #H3335

So "blacks and yellows and reds and browns" ARE really people but just of a different line than Adam and his posterity.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 12, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> So "blacks and yellows and reds and browns" ARE really people but just of a different line than Adam and his posterity.



So when the Bible says God drowned everybody but Noah and sons, it really didn't mean everybody but Noah and sons. It really mean, everybody but Noah and sons and all those minorities cause they aren't really the people from Adam.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female."
> 
> So which is it, two of every clean animal or fourteen of every clean animal?



"Two of every flesh" (unclean) vs. seven of every clean animal (which means animals that were clean/edible for consumption).


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 12, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female."
> ...



It doesn't say two of every (unclean) flesh. It says two of every flesh and then changes later in the story.

If it's crystal clear, there shouldn't be any wiggle room.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > So "blacks and yellows and reds and browns" ARE really people but just of a different line than Adam and his posterity.
> ...



Note the reason for the flood.  God had been rejected and the world had turned to debauchery.  God saw that it was time to clean up the mess.  Also note that all the animals were also drowned in the flood (except for two of every unclean and seven of every clean).  So it's not hard to accept that two of every kind of human were saved from the flood along with Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives.  God kept them all alive to start over with a clean slate.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 12, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



Two of every flesh WAS taken aboard the ark.  Of the clean animals, an additional 5 of each was included.  Problem solved.


----------



## Taz (Oct 12, 2014)

So there were hundreds of people on the Ark? Don't think that's what the bible says. Anyways, how did the eskimos come to Noah? Did they use frequent flyer miles?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 12, 2014)

There were 8 humans on that boat, and God.  We are not privy to the ethnicity of the wives of Noah's children, only that their DNA had not been altered by having sex with fallen angels. 
Noah drank to much wine *once*. Which does not a drunkard make.  And *no *incest occurred.
2 of every species were saved. The clean animals,  that numbered more than 2 were used as sacrifices.


> Gen. 8:20 "Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar."


----------



## Taz (Oct 12, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> There were 8 humans on that boat, and God.  We are not privy to the ethnicity of the wives of Noah's children, only that their DNA had not been altered by having sex with fallen angels.
> Noah drank to much wine *once*. Which does not a drunkard make.  And *no *incest occurred.
> 2 of every species were saved. The clean animals,  that numbered more than 2 were used as sacrifices.
> 
> ...


So where do all the chinks, pigmies, spooks and other natives come from if there were only 8 peeps on the boat?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 12, 2014)

From the 8 peeps.  One of which was described as "fair".  Another was described as "dusky skinned."  We are even told which ones went where globally.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 12, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> The Tower of Babel, of course. When God made everyone speak different languages, He also made them all different races and sent them all over the world.
> 
> When a story simply doesn't make sense, just insert the phrase "God did it" and it'll all work out.



Better than my answer: evolution. But of course it the planet's less than 6,000 years old evolution wouldn't have had time to create the myriad of ethnicities.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 12, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > The Tower of Babel, of course. When God made everyone speak different languages, He also made them all different races and sent them all over the world.
> ...




Who says it only 6,000 years old?  The city of Jerico itself has been dated to 11000 - 9000 BCE.  Where do you people get this stuff from?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



The God people.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 12, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...




Then they are making foolish and uneducated statements.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Ya thanks. There was a memo...


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


The Bible is a tool for understanding God. Is that what you are indeed seeking to do?


----------



## Toro (Oct 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



I agree.

Just like those who think Noah's Ark was literally true.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Oct 13, 2014)

Mankind shouldn't have pissed off Enlil, maybe he wouldn't have made them swim with the fishies.
​


----------



## Taz (Oct 14, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


Yes. And I want to know whether the bible is just made up stuff or really the word of god written down by men and edited several times. So if there were 8 people on the Ark, Noah, his wife and two children, which leaves 4 other people to safeguard Asians, blacks, pigmies, eskimos, indians, bush people and all the other different kinds of people that we now have on earth. What say ye?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


As clear as mud. Per the fable, Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the planet after the flood. That suggests some.... Um... creepy inter-familial relationships. In many places on the planet, those types of relationships are deemed illegal. 

It's you thumpers who should know your bibles before addressing these issues.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> There were 8 humans on that boat, and God.  We are not privy to the ethnicity of the wives of Noah's children, only that their DNA had not been altered by having sex with fallen angels.
> Noah drank to much wine *once*. Which does not a drunkard make.  And *no *incest occurred.
> 2 of every species were saved. The clean animals,  that numbered more than 2 were used as sacrifices.
> 
> ...


Interesting, no?

We can See the lineage of Christianity wherein the inventors of the religion identified the pagan rituals of earlier religions from which christianity was invented: making ritual sacrifice to the gods.


----------



## pbel (Oct 14, 2014)

Goddess_Ashtara said:


> Mankind shouldn't have pissed off Enlil, maybe he wouldn't have made them swim with the fishies.
> ​


Only a wack job Satanic worshiper would bring up ancient paganism and Enlil... Ninlil followed him to the underworld where she bore his first child who may be your ancestors from the satanic underworld...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Except that there was no flood, no Ark and no 6,000 year old planet. 

Did you realize that the alleged biblical flood would have occurred around the time of Mayan civilization? 

That puts something of a kibosh on your flood tales.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


probably the same place they came from when you claim the first living thing crawled out of a mud puddle......


----------



## pbel (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


Absolutely correct...It is a fairy tale to subjugate their own people into line...


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Nope.  Noah had a wife.  Ham had a wife. Shem had a wife. Japheth had a wife. When you read the description of Noah you'll find that he was "perfect in his generations" (Genesis 6:9) which means that he had no genetic imperfections; therefore, there were no genetic weaknesses that would cause handicapped offspring as a result of marriage between cousins.  Plus, when God's will and presence is involved He could have supernaturally assured that the seed of Noah remained strong and healthy.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Since the bible thumpers don't believe in evolution, they can't say they just evolved.


???....do you believe blacks and asians are a different species than Aryans?.......there were some folks who agreed with you that governed Germany once.....


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



And yet you believe this fairy tale:  First there was nothing then **poof** there was everything.  All one, big, chaotic, miraculous mistake based on pure happenstance.  Talk about fairy tales.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


Hollie.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Ah yes, the "supernatural", weasel. "_the gawds did it... by supernatural means"_, resolves all unresolvable biblical tales and fables.


----------



## Taz (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


So you don't know? Doesn't make sense to you either?


----------



## Taz (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Since the bible thumpers don't believe in evolution, they can't say they just evolved.
> ...


They are different races that weren't on Noah's boat. So how did they get here? Evolution?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Actually, you have already identified you pick and choose the less contradictory, less absurd tales of the bibles in favor of your invention of Christianity _lite_. That's fine. Like most religionists, you simply reinvent the tales tales and fables as you go.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And yet you fail to provide a viable answer to man's existence.  Your entire belief system revolves around hypothesis, conjecture, and wishful thinking.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 14, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> The Tower of Babel, of course. When God made everyone speak different languages, He also made them all different races and sent them all over the world.
> 
> When a story simply doesn't make sense, just insert the phrase "God did it" and it'll all work out.


Race depends on your genealogy and the part of the world your ancestors came from. Apparently their were numerous tribes on Earth as early as Babylon.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



One of those rare occasions when we actually agree on something.  Blending the Bible with evolutionary science is like mixing oil with water.  You either believe in the Bible or you don't.  Picking and choosing is actually worse, IMO, than absolute rejection.


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 14, 2014)

The Bible is a storybook, a work of fiction.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


There is a viable explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. Curiously, it requires no magic, supernaturalism or Christian ritual sacrifices to the gods.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

_


Taz said:





PostmodernProph said:





Luddly Neddite said:



			Since the bible thumpers don't believe in evolution, they can't say they just evolved.
		
Click to expand...

???....do you believe blacks and asians are a different species than Aryans?.......there were some folks who agreed with you that governed Germany once.....
		
Click to expand...

They are different races that weren't on Noah's boat. So how did they get here? Evolution? 

Click to expand...

_
*Genesis 6:19, "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female."*


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr Clean said:


> The Bible is a storybook, a work of fiction.



So says the man who knows all things but really hasn't a clue.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yep. The bibles are either literally true or you are in a position of picking and choosing. Why did the gods literally lie to A&E (not the cable station), about the punishment for fruit theft?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 14, 2014)

Think the problem with religion is while some of the commandments are good and sensible, confusing the book those are found in with a history or science book is frought with peril. Don't need gods to be real to know why killing's bad, but then going on to believe a human made boat could hold even 1 of every species is to require complete denial of reality.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


it would appear its a result of the effect the sun has upon human skin over many generations.......evolution is a theory that explains the development of new species.....I don't believe that Africans are a different species than Caucasians........


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > There were 8 humans on that boat, and God.  We are not privy to the ethnicity of the wives of Noah's children, only that their DNA had not been altered by having sex with fallen angels.
> ...



Actually, offering sacrifices to God started in the Garden of Eden so if anyone copied anyone it was the pagans copying Cain & Abel (the first mention of "offerings."


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


did I reinvent something?.......did anyone believe the universe was 6000 years old before Usscher made the claim?.....I have simply ignored his reinvention.....


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Think the problem with religion is while some of the commandments are good and sensible, confusing the book those are found in with a history or science book is frought with peril. Don't need gods to be real to know why killing's bad, but then going on to believe a human made boat could hold even 1 of every species is to require complete denial of reality.



The problem you have here is that you, and a created being, don't have the right to pick and choose which of God's commandments are "good and sensible."  If they are of God then they all serve a purpose in a greater sense than our finite minds can fathom.  Therefore, even if we may not like it all of God's edicts are "good and sensible" even if they were only enacted for a short period of man's history on earth.  For instance, many of the laws of the Old Covenant served an important purpose during that era but the Old Covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant and many of those Old laws have been fulfilled in Christ and are no longer required under the New Covenant.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Actually, offering sacrifices to the gawds started with fears and superstitions that predate the invention of Christianity. 

You do realize that the various bible tales and fables were written by men, right?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's fine to pick and choose from among the biblical tales and fables. For use and information, the men who wrote the bibles define creation as an earthly event. 

Have you ever actually read any of the bibles?


----------



## Mr Natural (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is a storybook, a work of fiction.
> ...



I know a work of fiction when I see it.

Talking snakes?  C'mon.


----------



## Taz (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


BE SERIOUS!!!! 
Evolution doesn't just make new species, it gives existing ones slight variations from each other. To say that black got black by being in the sun and cooking is ridiculous, the black skin is a defense against the sun, and how humans evolved to deal with the hot sun in Africa. Now you know.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Somewhere in our history, yes all our histories, there was an event which is described in the Bible. God wrote a description of the event in the terms he choose. So is the story of Noah and the flood literal? Yes. Does it describe elephants and giraffes and hippos, et. al., walking across a wooden plank in the rain? No. Unfortunately people who stop trying to understand God when the story does not make sense understand the word of God just as well as those who stop trying to understand God when the story does make sense. After all, the story of Noah makes no sense. God knew it would make no sense to us but put it in his book anyway. 

(For Bible translations this page is very helpful for understanding differences between versions: Bible Translation Guide Mardel )


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



Great question.  The answer proves evolution.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...



Now that would have made more sense if Noah brought along 2 asians, 2 arabs, 2 greeks, 2 whites, 2 blacks etc.

Then you could say all the different variations of people we have today are because when their children eventually mated they mixed breeds.  

They didn't think the Noah story out enough but back in those days the people were really gullible.  Hell, some people today still believe it!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




That's the convenient thing about the bible and religion.

One can pick and choose to make it whatever suits their agenda. 

Cool, huh?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 14, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Believe whatever you need to believe but it was written by men, each with his own agenda. Then translated and re-translated until there is very little left of the original myths and fables.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 14, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


This a relevant post. I am interested if you have any suggestions. Does The Bible Prove Itself Do Books Prove Themselves Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 14, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Isn't it amazing that the Noah story is a story adopted by many different cultures?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 14, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Think the problem with religion is while some of the commandments are good and sensible, confusing the book those are found in with a history or science book is frought with peril. Don't need gods to be real to know why killing's bad, but then going on to believe a human made boat could hold even 1 of every species is to require complete denial of reality.



Have you ever stopped to consider that the flood may have been a localized flood and that the animals Noah loaded onto the ark were only animals resident to the area affected by the flood?  I'd even venture that most of the animals were of the domesticated kind.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 14, 2014)

Mr Clean said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Weren't a snake.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Right. We're simply eaten up with half-bird - half-fish creatures and half-man - half apes. They're all around us.  LOL!!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


thoroughly......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


???....curious.....I say the same thing as you and you claim I said they were cooking.....one would almost think you were smoking.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your silly "sun theory" does not work in timeframes of a 6,000 year old planet.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


But you understood none of it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


I've never argued against evolution......I've argued against the silly things that folks like you pretend it proves, such as human beings and mushrooms having common ancestors......or life crawling out of mud puddles.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


to the contrary......I understand the things you don't......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


but only you and the Rev. Phelps believe in a 6000 year old planet.....


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



One of the greatest books I read was Campbell's "Hero With A Thousand Faces". He points out that pretty much every culture just keeps telling the same stories with the same basic plots points and events. It's just the way our hopes and fears and needs are universal and so are the tales we tell to fulfill those hopes and fears and needs.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Clearly, you should not argue against evolution because you understand nothing of. Your repeated "mud puddles" theory suggests you're spending way too much time at Harun Yahya.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Actually, your silly "sun theory" timeline identifies your embrace of the 6,000 year old planet suggested in the bibles.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol....I would love to see you lay that out as a logical argument......how does my theory that humans' skin darkens in relation to the effects of the sun in their geographical area demonstrate that I believe in a 6000 year old planet........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


tell me then, what do you believe life crawled out of?.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


lol... try proof reading your comments before you post them on public discussion board.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Tell me, then. What are they telling you at Harun Yahya?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

They teach you in evolution school that we all come from 1 mitochondrial Eve/female  and she was from Africa.  So tell me where did the Asians, and Norwegians and my blue eyes come from?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> They teach you in evolution school that we all come from 1 mitochondrial Eve/female  and she was from Africa.  So tell me where did the Asians, and Norwegians and my blue eyes come from?


I've never heard of evolution school. Did you hear that term at your madrassah?


----------



## peach174 (Oct 14, 2014)

*The different races* came through time by natural adaptation from the three sons of Noah who went in different directions. The Bible explicitly states that all humanity are the descendants of Noah through his three sons.
Gen 9:18-19 “_Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these _ *the whole earth was populated.”*
The account of Genesis 11 is found in Genesis 10. Gen 10:1 Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood.
Gen 10:5: “From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
Gen 10 “These were the sons of Ham, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands and in their nations.
Gen 10:31-32: “These were the sons of Shem, according to their families, according to their languages, in their lands, according to their nations. These were the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.”
We can trace the genealogies of  all the numerous races back in time-- _This is the genealogy of Shem: Shem was one hundred years old, and begot Arphaxad two years after the flood_. (Gen 11:10)
Different racial skin tones did not originate at the Tower of Babel,
There were two different exodus,' one from Noah's family and the other from those at the Tower of Babel. _So the LORD scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city_. (Gen 11:8)
 The event at the Tower of Babel caused humanity to be scattered throughout the world; and as they went to different parts of the world different factors came into place. Environmental adaptation and the passing on of acquired genetic characteristics effected different racial skin tones.
Acts 17 “_And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings”

The different races came through time by natural adaptation from thethree sons of Noah who went in different directions_


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > They teach you in evolution school that we all come from 1 mitochondrial Eve/female  and she was from Africa.  So tell me where did the Asians, and Norwegians and my blue eyes come from?
> ...



lol, for the sake of moving to the question in my post, let's just say you were schooled in evolution where ever you went to school. Okay?
Now to the question:
If we all "evolved" from a common ancestor from Africa, how do you explain the Swedes?
You have more of a problem with the OP than Christians do.

What we know about Noah's sons is that one was fair skinned, and another one was darker.
*That*  fact was important enough to be noted in the Bible. One may have taken after his dad.  The other may have looked more like his mom.  Because:
What we *don't *know about Noah's wife, *and* Noah's son's wives is their genealogy.  All we know about them was that all of those lines of human DNA had never been corrupted.

Mitochondrial Eve, would had to have *walked* the globe and had sex with ?? every one she met ( except if she is the mother of all, where did ole blue eyed Swede come from to begin with and wouldn't that be incestuous and...)
and then she had all of their babies..... back in Africa, and they all fanned out from there.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Actually, the tales and fables of Noah, Arks and global floods have no substantiation beyond your need for them to be true.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Well it is all true!  Do you see those comets out in space?  They believe that all life may have started when one of those amino acid filled comets crashed into earth.  Those amino acids are the building blocks of life.  So all life came from them.  What was the first life form on earth and how did it branch off into all the different species we have today?  I don't know.  Ask a scientists.  But don't ask a religion because they're going to tell you some made up creation story their ancestors came up with thousands of years ago.  Grow up!  Evolve.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



yet he bolds the word THAT right next to the word fact as if the Noah story is a fact.  Fucking stupid people.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie, substantiation has nothing to do with the OP.  The post is hypothetical. * If* there was a flood, and no blacks or Asians were on board.........
There is no way to tell whether or not those two ethnic groups  were or were not on board *except for* the information we are given in the Bible.
If there was a flood, and the story is true, then this answers the question.

A point was made as to the skin color of Noah's children.  Shem means "dusky".  Japheth means "fair", Ham means "to be black".

Here is where their children settled according to the Bible:
Ham's children went to = Ethiopia, Egypt, Libya,  Canaan, among others.
Shem's children settled in = Arabia, Syria, among others.
And these are the routes mapped out that Japheth's 7 son's took:
  1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
  2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks,   Croatians)
  3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
  4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
  5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
  6. Meshech (Russia)
  7. Gomer (Celtic)

If the flood happened, there is your answer.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, substantiation has nothing to do with the OP.  The post is hypothetical. * If* there was a flood, and no blacks or Asians were on board.........
> There is no way to tell whether or not those two ethnic groups  were or were not on board except for the information we are given in the Bible.
> If there was a flood, and the story is true, then this answers the question.
> 
> ...


That's so silly. The flood didn't happen. 

Ho do you explain Noah's rainbow coalition children unless he was boinking many different women of many different races, ethnicities?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Other than your "... because I say so", command, what causes you to affirmatively state that "All we know about them was that all of those lines of human DNA had never been corrupted."

"We" don't know any such thing. You're just making that up.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



He is a she, Sealy, and that's a fact.  What I provided is in the Bible.  And do I believe the Bible is factual? Yes.  And are we discussing what is in the Bible, yes.
That  is not the question.  The question is, "If it happened, then how".   My answer is, "It did happen, and here is how. * You* have no answer.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Biblical facts are not facts at all. 

Biblical facts of talking snakes and global floods are not fact at all but ancient fears and superstitions that some folks still allow themselves to be subservient to.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
But let's get back to evolution.  IF evolution is correct.  If we all come from Mitochondrial Eve from Africa, why do I have blue eyes?  When did she stop having black children and start having Chinese and Danish babies?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, substantiation has nothing to do with the OP.  The post is hypothetical. * If* there was a flood, and no blacks or Asians were on board.........
> ...





Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



In other words, you have no idea, and generalize to avoiding having to say so...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
> But let's get back to evolution.  IF evolution is correct.  If we all come from Mitochondrial Eve from Africa, why do I have blue eyes?  When did she stop having black children and start having Chinese and Danish babies?


"Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.

Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Not so. In reality, you hurl fundamentalist dogma with the presumption it is true when the dogma is demonstrably false.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
> ...



And, You don't know your a**  from page 8 about either:

*Noah* in the Old Testament, is recognized in Islam as a prophet and apostle of God (Arabic: الله‎ _Allāh_). He is a highly important figure in Islamic history, as he is counted amongst the earliest prophets sent by God to mankind.[2] According to Islam, Noah's mission was to save a wicked world, plunged in depravity and sin. God charged Noah with the duty of preaching to his people to make them abandon idolatry and to worship only the One Creator and to live good and pure lives.[3] Although he preached the Message of God with immense zeal, his people refused to mend their ways, leading to his building of the Ark and the famous event of the Deluge, the Great Flood in which all the evil people of his time perished. The influence of Noah's preaching and prophet-hood spanned 950 years according to Quran.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

> Not so. In reality, you hurl fundamentalist dogma with the presumption it is true when the dogma is demonstrably false.



You* make me* hurl.   

Cause you don't listen.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What Hollie said.  And the fact is, most Christians admit that the Adam, Noah, Moses & Jonah stories in the bible are all just allegories.  Why do they admit that?  Because the stories are so wild they can't possibly honestly say they believe those things.

BUT, then ask them about virgin births and Jesus rising from the dead after being dead 3 days and they are so brainwashed they aren't able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out so are the Jesus stories.

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



All that tells us is Islam is a spin off or knock off of Christianity.

We also know that 100 years after Jesus, the people who wrote the bible put in a bunch of prophecies that supposedly came true.  

If you ask me the bible was purposely made up.  No way someone wrote all that and believed it.  What amazes me though is that they expected anyone else to believe it.

Maybe people were dumber back then.  In fact we know they were.  They were very superstitious and didn't know shit about science.  

My question is how does a person today still believe as you do?  I suspect you don't really believe that shit.  If you did you'd be a fucking nut.  I assume that the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

> If you ask me...


No one's asking you........
But my daily walk with our Father isn't altered one bit by your lack of one. 

And *most *Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.  And God does not lie.  Christ himself said that the OT is God's word.  Therefore a Christian can believe with confidence that if God said it happened there is no reason to believe otherwise.  For those Christians that aren't sure, read and believe what it says,  and leave the conjecture to the non-readers.

And don't tell Hollie the Quran is a knock off.   She'll have a stroke.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > If you ask me...
> 
> 
> No one's asking you........
> ...


Actually, you seem the one with stroke symptoms. You reacted with typical  fear and loathing at the suggestion that the Koran was the perfection of corruption within Christianity. 

You should consider converting to the religion that has superseded yours.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Not so. In reality, you hurl fundamentalist dogma with the presumption it is true when the dogma is demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have listened and you're not up to the task of defending biblical absurdities.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Did you realize that the OT is actually Hebrew scripture that was co-opted by the inventors of Christianity?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
> ...


For blasphemy and perverting the words of Moses God's wrath will know no bounds.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Oh my. The Christian version of ISIS has arrived.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Focus Hollie.  How did I get blue eyes from the African, DNA Eve?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You are using God's word to kill God's children.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


how does that keep people from lying about them?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


come on Hollie.......what did life crawl out of?......tell us what you believe in.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


contrasted with all the substantiation of mud puddles and crawling life.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > If you ask me...
> ...


it would have been so much easier for you to simply post "oh, I fucked up about what the Koran said about Noah, thank you for correcting my sorry ass".......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Focus Hollie.  How did I get blue eyes from the African, DNA Eve?


Concentrate, dear. How do you address the absurdities of Ark tales?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


All of the biological sciences contradict your 6,000 year old earth nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


You're having difficulty accepting the absurdities of Ark tales.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Come on fundie man.....what do they tell you at Harun Yahya?...... tell us about a 6,000 year old earth.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


No one is lying about them.... only you.....


----------



## SmedlyButler (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> _
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> ...





DriftingSand said:


> _
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> ...



Is this your personal explanation or is it an answer you found from some published Apologist? If the latter could you identify the source? I would like to know how this could be justified because it seems to directly contradict other Bible testimony such as 1 Peter 3:20;

_1 Peter 3:20 
20) who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few,* that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water*._

That doesn't seem to leave any wiggle room, Peter says 8 people were aboard the ark and were saved. And Genesis 7 is clear that other than these 8 people only "beasts" were aboard;

_7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood._
*8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.*
_10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
_
"Answers in Genesis" doesn't need any complicated apologetics to answer this question, in light of all the Biblical evidence they go with the simplest explanation here;

_"Biologically speaking, humans (and just about everything else) went through a “bottleneck” at the Flood. This means that the human population was reduced from millions to just eight. Most of the genetic diversity from before the Flood was lost.
*The new human race descended from Noah and his family*, who carried all the genes that were eventually passed down to us today."
_
So if you have a source that more fully accounts for how your theory that other "races" were among the beasts that entered the ark two by two (or seven by seven) can be squared with the plain Biblical texts which seem to contradict it I would like to have a look.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 14, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > _
> ...



I quoted the source -- Chapter and Verse.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Oct 14, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



One thing's for sure, your post doesn't make any sense.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Oct 14, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Okay, so it's your personal opinion and I take it you think Peter and the folks over at answersingenesis.com  got it wrong. That's all right, everybody's entitled to their opinion.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > If you ask me...
> ...


 
No,  I reacted calmly and corrected your belief that the Qur'an makes no mention of Noah.  
And with my last breath, I'll praise Christ's name.  Nothing 'supersedes' The Lord.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 14, 2014)

Anyone ever think of the rain. To have enough water to cover the entire earth (29,055 ft), the rate at which it would fall in 40 days and 40 nights would be so hard that it would kill every living thing.  And what about the plants and trees that need photosynthesis. And what about the aquatic creatures, some can only survive in fresh water, some only in salt water. What about the food for the animals, do you know how much food each animal eats in a year. Some animals will only digest only certain types of "local" diets. The waste alone would keeps hundreds of people round the clock on poop scoop detail. Also the temperature at that level (29,055 ft) will be freezing and kill off most animals, the level of oygen will be at least 30% lower and if all trees are completely buried under the water say goodbye to all life on land. Also what about...???????

For entertainment purposes only


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
> ...



Well Hollie, now that you know better, does that make the Bible flawed and the Koran of "perfection" flawed too?  Or are they* both* "true" now?  Which Noah "tale"can we "quote" because we know* it's* true.  And because you believe the Quran is true, then you must believe that  the "story" about Noah and the deluge is true as well, correct?  Is your Quran lying, or did Noah build an ark......


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Anyone ever think of the rain. To have enough water to cover the entire earth (29,055 ft), the rate at which it would fall in 40 days and 40 nights would be so hard that it would kill every living thing.  And what about the plants and trees that need photosynthesis. And what about the aquatic creatures, some can only survive in fresh water, some only in salt water. What about the food for the animals, do you know how much food each animal eats in a year. Some animals will only digest only certain types of "local" diets. The waste alone would keeps hundreds of people round the clock on poop scoop detail. Also the temperature at that level (29,055 ft) will be freezing and kill off most animals, the level of oygen will be at least 30% lower and if all trees are completely buried under the water say goodbye to all life on land. Also what about...???????
> 
> For entertainment purposes only



The water didn't all come from above.  Some came up from the earth.  Grains were gathered for food and planting.  Some seeds float and not all plants would succumb in a month and 10 days under water.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Focus Hollie.  How did I get blue eyes from the African, DNA Eve?
> ...



The question is how do you?  Because it's also all there in* your *book of perfection. Are you saying the Quran is a fake?  The Quran's absurdities about Noah are the same as the Bibles'.  What now?


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever think of the rain. To have enough water to cover the entire earth (29,055 ft), the rate at which it would fall in 40 days and 40 nights would be so hard that it would kill every living thing.  And what about the plants and trees that need photosynthesis. And what about the aquatic creatures, some can only survive in fresh water, some only in salt water. What about the food for the animals, do you know how much food each animal eats in a year. Some animals will only digest only certain types of "local" diets. The waste alone would keeps hundreds of people round the clock on poop scoop detail. Also the temperature at that level (29,055 ft) will be freezing and kill off most animals, the level of oygen will be at least 30% lower and if all trees are completely buried under the water say goodbye to all life on land. Also what about...???????
> ...


You all got some serious problems if you believe all that horsehockey.
A month and 10 days. Did you actually read the story?
The waters flooded the earth for a *hundred and fifty days*, and *every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out*. As the waters receded, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Noah and his family continued to wait for almost *eight more months* while the surface of the earth dried out.


----------



## Yarddog (Oct 15, 2014)

OK , maybe another possibility to the story .

National Geographic Noah s Flood Black Sea Expedition


----------



## Yarddog (Oct 15, 2014)

posibly it was the flooding of the black sea by the Medditeranean following the Ice age,   as sea levels rose.   Its about in the right place.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Well, Irish Ram, now that you have been shown the errors and falsehoods of superstitious Ark tales, why would you expect others to accept such absurdities?

Your fundamentalist beliefs point out very clearly the dangers of religious extremism. According to you, rationally thinking people shouldn't come to any conclusions about whatever absurd, ludicrous, or outlandish nonsense a theist might choose to utter as a "fact". Sorry. Humanity can do better than that, and we are doing better -- except when we run into throwbacks who use precisely your ideas, that assertions are true without applying any standards to them.

If you want an objective view of the absurdities surrounding your biblical Ark tales and fables, start here:

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...





The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Your question is confused and irrelevant.

Although, I do see a glimmer of hope in your statement: "The Quran's absurdities about Noah are the same as the Bibles'. Are you now coming to the realization that the writers of books, self-proclaiming their absolute authority doesn't require you to accept tales and fables as true and inerrant?

You supernaturalists/book worshippers have to assume a lot more than just your illogical frame of reference in connection with gods and your claims to magic. You're required to postulate contingent reality is also evidence of the supernatural (thereby hopelessly blurring what is meant by "natural" and "supernatural"). Further, you also has to _assume_ a written text we know was authored by men (various bibles, korans, etc) is somehow accurate in its perception of the metaphysical. This assumption is based purely on the texts (and the men who wrote them), self-proclaiming themselves this authority, and upon nothing else.  You supernaturalists are further burdened by appealing to an alternate reality which _isn't_ cohesive-- an alternate reality in which absurdities of nature are commonplace: seas part, dead men rise and "ascend to heaven" and so on.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > SmedlyButler said:
> ...





SmedlyButler said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > SmedlyButler said:
> ...



Whether we like it or not the Bible shows preferential treatment towards some folks over others.  Look at what Christ instructs His Apostles to do in the following verses then read what Christ says to a non-Israelite woman (it may help explain your 1 Peter 3:20 reference):

*Matthew 10:5-6*_*, "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
*_
*Matthew 15:22-26*_*, "And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."*_

Apparently, God/Christ considers folks in Eve's genetic line (posterity) as "persons."  He specifically told His Apostles to avoid certain peoples and told them to seek out lost Israelites, only.  And then He specifically called a woman of Canaan a "dog."  His ways are not our ways.  Nevertheless, Noah was commanded to take "two of every flesh" so I must assume that he obeyed that command.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Focus Hollie.  How did I get blue eyes from the African, DNA Eve?
> ...



List those things that you believe are "absurd."  

1) Prior to the flood what we know of as "continents" today were connected as one, large landmass. The overall climate was mild and evenly distributed so all animals were accessible and likely local.
2) God is considered supernatural and all powerful. He could easily have aided Noah in locating "two of every living flesh."
3) Noah likely collected very young animals that didn't require as much to eat and took up less space on the ark.
4) Many animals hibernate so it's possible that many hibernated during the massive storm which would have required less food storage.

Also, please explain how Mammoths have been found in the arctic regions with buttercups in their mouths and why sharks' teeth have been found atop high mountains.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...





DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



1) Nonsense. Less than 6.000 years ago, the continents were clearly not one large landmass.

2) Well yeah, when your arguments are resolve to unsupportable conclusions deriving from "it's magic", it's convenient to invoke supernaturalism.

3) Nonsense. AIG preys upon the gullible and the ignorant. Don't assume that others will accept such appeals to fear and ignorance.

4) Nonsense. The cult of AIG has an interest in promoting those absurdities but don't expect others to blindly accept such cult propaganda.

If you had ever taken a 7th grade course in geology/earth science, you would understand why, for example, sea shells are found in the desert.

You fundamentalists are a scary lot.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So no viable arguments.  Thanks for trying.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Whether we like it or not the Bible shows preferential treatment towards some folks over others.  Look at what Christ instructs His Apostles to do in the following verses then read what Christ says to a non-Israelite woman (it may help explain your 1 Peter 3:20 reference):


Cults/religions typically promote dogma that separates the cult members from the "out-group". They promote a potent sociopolitical ideology with consummate hostility toward the out-group of unbelievers as one among their principal tenets.

That precisely defines how religions have propagated over time; through war conquest and rapine.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


You never offered a viable argument.

Did you forget that it was _you_ who made appeals to supernaturalism?

Support your first allegation that less than 6,000 years ago the continents were one large land mass.

Provide your source (we both know it was AIG), and AIG's peer reviewed data so that we can examine your claims.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I have to admit.......for a brainless twit, you're certainly consistent........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Typically pointless.


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

peach174 said:


> *The different races* came through time by natural adaptation from the three sons of Noah who went in different directions. The Bible explicitly states that all humanity are the descendants of Noah through his three sons.
> Gen 9:18-19 “_Now the sons of Noah who went out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these _ *the whole earth was populated.”*
> The account of Genesis 11 is found in Genesis 10. Gen 10:1 Now this is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. And sons were born to them after the flood.
> Gen 10:5: “From these the coastland peoples of the Gentiles were separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations.
> ...


"natural adaptation", you mean evolution?


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


So you're admitting that the bible is fiction? The world being made in 6 days and then god needing a rest doesn't make sense either. Neither does your god dying on a cross with his shlong hanging out....


----------



## peach174 (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > *The different races* came through time by natural adaptation from the three sons of Noah who went in different directions. The Bible explicitly states that all humanity are the descendants of Noah through his three sons.
> ...




Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution Difference Between Adaptation vs Evolution

Summary:
1. All living things change through time in order to survive in their environment.
2. Adaptation involves short-term changes to suit the habitat and environment.
3. Evolution is a long-term process wherein changes occur in the genetic level for a better functioning and survival as a race.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Evolution is based upon circular reasoning and cannot be proven science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> Anyone ever think of the rain. To have enough water to cover the entire earth (29,055 ft), the rate at which it would fall in 40 days and 40 nights would be so hard that it would kill every living thing.  And what about the plants and trees that need photosynthesis. And what about the aquatic creatures, some can only survive in fresh water, some only in salt water. What about the food for the animals, do you know how much food each animal eats in a year. Some animals will only digest only certain types of "local" diets. The waste alone would keeps hundreds of people round the clock on poop scoop detail. Also the temperature at that level (29,055 ft) will be freezing and kill off most animals, the level of oygen will be at least 30% lower and if all trees are completely buried under the water say goodbye to all life on land. Also what about...???????
> 
> For entertainment purposes only


after the last person drowned, was it necessary that it continue to rain until Mt. Everest was submerged?......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


It is proven science.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> 1) Nonsense. Less than 6.000 years ago, the continents were clearly not one large landmass.


code for "I have nothing intelligent to add so I'll just say '6000 years' and hope no one notices"......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone ever think of the rain. To have enough water to cover the entire earth (29,055 ft), the rate at which it would fall in 40 days and 40 nights would be so hard that it would kill every living thing.  And what about the plants and trees that need photosynthesis. And what about the aquatic creatures, some can only survive in fresh water, some only in salt water. What about the food for the animals, do you know how much food each animal eats in a year. Some animals will only digest only certain types of "local" diets. The waste alone would keeps hundreds of people round the clock on poop scoop detail. Also the temperature at that level (29,055 ft) will be freezing and kill off most animals, the level of oygen will be at least 30% lower and if all trees are completely buried under the water say goodbye to all life on land. Also what about...???????
> ...


Mt. Everest was never submerged by the biblical flood.  

You Flat Earth'ers are a wacky bunch.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


well there's something we can agree on at least.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Nonsense. Less than 6.000 years ago, the continents were clearly not one large landmass.
> ...


While it will conflict with your YEC'ist dogma, it's just foolish for you to believe that that there was only a single large land mass less than 6,000 years ago.

Don't let your hurt feelings prevent you from learning some factual earth history.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There was no biblical flood. Kick, scream, stomp your feet all you want. The biblical flood tale, like so many tales and fables, "miracles", etc., are utterly absent substantiation.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Im sure it's a waste of time trying to educate religious zealots, but start here:

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol.....you're worried about earth history when you can't even keep up with thread history?.....only in your faulty imagination will you find me believing in a single land mass within the last 6000 years.....of course, you know that....its just that you cannot bring yourself to engage honestly in any debate......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



and yet, it is remembered by nearly every culture in the world, regardless of religion.....does that not strike you as odd, given your denial?.........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The biblical flood happened less than 6,000 years ago yet, according to you, "it is remembered by nearly every culture in the world, regardless of religion".

Doesn't that strike you as odd, even making allowance for your fundamentalist beliefs.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


lol... you don't understand earth history which is why you're having difficulty with challenges to your biblical flood tales.... only in fundamentalist Christian apologetics are Ark tales looked upon as a true rendering of earth history.... yet you cannot bring yourself to actually try and refute the evidence dismissing such Ark tales as nonsense....

There's no real debate to be had with those who dismiss evidence in favor of belief in superstitious tales and fables....


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You have a long way to go in showing me my errors.  We were discussing the rain.  It rained for 40 days.  That is a month and 10 days.
  What didn't survive *was everything that breathed on dry land.* Of what survived, according to the Bible, *was vegetation.*  A dove that Noah released returned with *A FRESH OLIVE LEAF*.   Not a dead one, not a water logged one. My Bible knowledge remains intact. 
*
On the other hand, * Hollie, how bout that perfect book you know so much about?  You know, the Quran?
If it's perfect, like you insist, tutor me again on what it doesn't say about Noah...  so I can correct you again.


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


So if god didn't flood the whole earth, why did Noah need to build a boat for the animals? Why didn't god just save the fucking animals HIMSELF???????


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

Oh and so you know God dots all i's and crosses all t's, He set that boat down on Ararat for a reason.  Ararat means 'cursed reversed'.


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Oh and God set that boat down on Ararat for a reason.  Ararat means, 'curse reversed'.


So if god set the boat on Ararat, how did all the animals get to Australia and the Americas?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

No one said God didn't flood the whole earth.  And I'd ask Him your question when I get there, but I have a feeling His ideas are so much above yours, that His actions were the correct ones and the question is moot.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...





Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and God set that boat down on Ararat for a reason.  Ararat means, 'curse reversed'.
> ...



They used legs and feet and stretches of land to get around, and on board ships, the same way the people spread out.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

Has Hollie given up or are you her stand in until she gets over the fact that her perfect book, knew about  Noah too?  That must have stung, her thinking it was just a lying Christian "tale"  and all.

If she is right about the Quran, then She has no choice than to accept Noah and the flood as the truth.  Unless her perfect book lies.........


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And here's my answer back at you:  EVOLUTION The Evidence Says No


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


So someone brought the millions of species to the rest of the world on a boat?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


I gave you the facts about the absurdity of bible flood tales. I understand your extremist beliefs require you to accept bible fables as literally true or you're forced into the position of pick and choose Christianity.

On the other hand, why don't you tell us why the gawds allowed your corrupted bibles to be supplanted by the Koran which corrects the errors and omissions?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Well yeah. Your source includes the major charlatans representing the most notorious Christian fundamentalist hacks and dregs.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


So basically, the Ark was just a larger Flintstone cartoon car, right?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yeah, they can't seem to be able to get the top evolutionist scientists to even debate them though.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Has Hollie given up or are you her stand in until she gets over the fact that her perfect book, knew about  Noah too?  That must have stung, her thinking it was just a lying Christian "tale"  and all.
> 
> If she is right about the Quran, then She has no choice than to accept Noah and the flood as the truth.  Unless her perfect book lies.........


Has Irish Ram really decided that the Koran is true and the perfection of the corrupted bibles?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Supplanted?  As I understand it, the Bible continues to be the all-time best seller. You'd best double-check your figures.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Well, they have. Although, the problem with the fundamentalist charlatans is that they have no viable arguments that don't rely on appeals to magic and supernaturalism .


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


All of Harry Potter must be true as those novels are best sellers, too.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

I think the reference  is to religious material Hollie.   And as hard as you twist,* You *are the one who claimed Quran perfection, not I.  So lets deal with your contention.
Did the Quran lie to you, or did Noah build an ark?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Has Hollie given up or are you her stand in until she gets over the fact that her perfect book, knew about  Noah too?  That must have stung, her thinking it was just a lying Christian "tale"  and all.
> ...



You're done Hollie, No amount of twisting in the wind is going to save your uneducated  blunder. 
Did your Quran lie to you, or did Noah build an ark?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I think the reference  is to religious material Hollie.   And as hard as you twist,* You *are the one who claimed Quran perfection, not I.  So lets deal with your contention.
> Did the Quran lie to you, or did Noah build an ark?


Please pay attention. It is the inventor of Islam that claims the Koran has corrected the errors and omissions in the various bibles, 

If it's written in a "holy book", it must be true, right? That's exactly your claim for the many bibles.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Oh, the melodrama is so cute. 

There was no Ark so obviously the bibles need another revision.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

But according to you Bible Noah is a lie.  Is Quran  Noah a lie too or did Noah build an ark?
Once we get past your blockage, maybe you can tell the OP how African Eve gave birth to blue eyed Norwegians......  You skirted that question too.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes they did and lost the debate big time.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> But according to you Bible Noah is a lie.  Is Quran  Noah a lie too or did Noah build an ark?
> Once we get past your blockage, maybe you can tell the OP how African Eve gave birth to blue eyed Norwegians......  You skirted that question too.


The biblical tale of Noah is a tale and fable, yes. Your fundamentalist beliefs are your own worst enemy when it comes to making reasoned conclusions. There was no Ark. Ark tales go beyond the absurd.

You never did address your Flintstone cartoon character version of the Ark. As absurdities go, you've plumbed new depths of the absurd.

In a historical timeline ( in your case, a hysterical timeline), I recall that Norway didn't exist 200,00 years ago. But then again, neither did this planet, at least according to you fundie types.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Yes, of course, dear.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

> The biblical tale of Noah is a tale and fable, yes.



And the Quran version you didn't know existed, is it a tale too?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > The biblical tale of Noah is a tale and fable, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Quran version you didn't know existed, is it a tale too?


You seem to have forgotten that I was the one who informed you of the biblical errors and omissions corrected by the Koran. 

If your conversion to Islam is complete, you must acknowledge the Koran is true.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?

Did you know they have built the ark to spec, and it works?  To answer some Flintstones remark I didn't make, 2 of each species were saved.  Not 2 poodles, and 2 beagles and two great Danes and 2 Cockers and 2  Newfi's and 2 Irish setters and 2 labs etc.  2 canines were aboard. 

Age of earth?  Answer in Genesis. Timeline:
Created.  An unnatural darkness..., earth reestablished for human habitation, humans.  There ya go, not that that has ANYTHING germane to the OP question. You are up the creek with no paddle.  Maybe Noah can help......


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

See,  you are confused.  What you told us was that silly fable would* never *be found in your perfect true Quran.  I corrected you.  So, did Quran Noah build an ark or not? Quran Deluge, yes or no?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> 
> Did you know they have built the ark to spec, and it works?  To answer some Flintstones remark I didn't make, 2 of each species were saved.  Not 2 poodles, and 2 beagles and two great Danes and 2 Cockers and 2  Newfi's and 2 Irish setters and 2 labs etc.  2 canines were aboard.
> 
> ...


Sorry. Answers in genesis is a laughable joke.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> See,  you are confused.  What you told us was that silly fable would* never *be found in your perfect true Quran.  I corrected you.  So, did Quran Noah build an ark or not? Quran Deluge, yes or no?


See, you're eternally confused. Did you realize your precious Koran treats hey'zeus as just another pedestrian "prophet", no return from the dead, no multi-Gods?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

> "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.
> Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.


^
Here in case you forget again what you said.
You came here to kick some Christian ass, and it bit you in yours.  At the very least, now that you know better, you have to say that, Bible Noah is fake, but Quran Noah is the real deal.  The flood happened because the Quran is true. 

You can have the last word.  I answered the OP and that's all I needed to do.  
Peace to you, even if it isn't in the Quran.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> ...



It would be laughable if it wasn't taken seriously by so many.

The truly ironic thing is the internet has allowed unthought of levels of information to be at the fingertips of the common man, but has also given a voice to every idiot or person with an agenda. All he has to do is sound authoritative to the uneducated and suddenly he's an expert that legitimate experts have to continually debunk or else have their efforts undermined.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.
> > Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.
> 
> 
> ...


You can believe whatever tales and fables you choose. 

Your confusion arises from the fact that the Koran holds biblical characters and biblical tales and fables with nowhere near the idolatry that you do.   You should also know that the Koran claims to resolve the errors and omissions in the bibles. 

You may wish to consider staring a movement to further revise the bibles in order to get a bit of one-upsmanship on those Koran groupies. 

If not a revised King James version, how about "_King of Pain", Version_. You know, add a bit of a contemporary feel to the tales and fables.


----------



## Taz (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> 
> Did you know they have built the ark to spec, and it works?  To answer some Flintstones remark I didn't make, 2 of each species were saved.  Not 2 poodles, and 2 beagles and two great Danes and 2 Cockers and 2  Newfi's and 2 Irish setters and 2 labs etc.  2 canines were aboard.
> 
> ...


If only 2 canines were on board, then they had to evolve into all the different breeds.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

It's like this Stephen:


> We are not trying to offend anybody, but the evidence that we have seen of Him in our small little lives trumps your opinion about whether or not He exists.



Have a  good one.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> ...



And if your extremist beliefs weren't so comically tragic, this might be funny.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 15, 2014)

> If only 2 canines were on board, then they had to evolve into all the different breeds.



And you just became smarter than Darwin.  Different breeds, not different species.
A monkey will always be a monkey.  A human will always be human.  We adapt to our environment, evolve if you prefer.  A blind cave fish adapted to the darkness and eyes were no longer necessary.  They are now born with eye sockets sans eyes.  They are still fish.   We aren't as hairy as we used to be.  We adapted. We will never evolve into a deer. 
In fact, science has us devolving at this point and we are losing our social skills.  We are adapting to social media instead of socializing.  But we will never devolve into a monkey.  Just less skilled humans.


Hey Hollie: NOAH. 
Later...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > If only 2 canines were on board, then they had to evolve into all the different breeds.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



None of that hysterical rant does anything to support silly Ark tales.

What happened to the dinosaurs that frolicked with mankind a few thousand years ago?

Hey, Irish Ram: John Morris.

Encyclopedia of American Loons 288 John D. Morris

John D. Morris is the son of the original modern young earth creationist, Henry Morris, the first one to try to construe science as “just another religion”, and hence on equal footing with respect to truth-aptness as Biblical literalism. John D. has followed in his father’s footsteps as president of the Institute for Creation Research (he is also an engineer). Most of his time is spent touring churches to misrepresent the fossil record (some of it is actually covered here; see also this and this).

His general tactic is to contrast the “harmful philosophies” and “evil practices” that are “fruits” of the evolutionary tree (including promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality, atheism & abortion), with the “genuine Christianity” and “correct practices” of the creationist tree (including “true history”, “true Americanism”, “true science”, and “true government”). Relatively standard fare, discussed nicely in this three part series (John features prominently): Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Together with Ken Ham he has written what seems to pass for a science textbook among creationists.

He’s not the only spawn of Henry Morris running around creating havoc. Henry Morris III is the CEO of the Institute for Creation Research (and ol’ Henry’s grandson, apparently). He was the guy who was most involved in the institute’s attempt to be given the authority to pass out graduate degrees in science. While their attempts found some support (see Leo Berman), it eventually failed, fortunately.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


?
The Story of Noah 8217 s Ark in the Holy Qur 8217 an SIMERG 8211 Insights from Around the World


> ‘O my son! embark with us and be not with the unbelievers’. The son replied: ‘I will betake myself to some mountain, it will save me from the flood’. And Noah said: ‘This day nothing can save you from what God has decreed, for only those on whom He has Mercy will be saved’. And the waves came between them and the son was among the drowned ones.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:42-43
> 
> Finally, when all the unbelievers were drowned in the flood, God commanded:
> 
> “O Earth! swallow up your water, and O Sky! withhold your rain! and the water abated and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi.” *[6]* — Holy Qur’an, 11:44


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Let's see. What can we surmise about the world before the flood?  Noah and his sons were probably much larger than the largest man alive today. They also lived longer. The earth had a firmament of water or ice in the upper atmosphere which blocked the uv and xrays from the sun. The air pressure and oxygen content was much greater which accounts for the growth of everything as well as the longevity and stamina of everything. Both the people and the animals (including the dinosaurs) were vegetarians. Footprints of human beings walking alongside dinosaurs have been found imbedded in limestone.

Now for the flood itself:  It rained 40 days but the waters beneath the surface of the earth sprang forth for 150 days and is what contributed to the flood the most. The flood is what caused the formation of the tremendous amounts of coal for the earth was like a hot house and trees and vegetation extended from pole to pole. The Grand Canyon was the result of the flood, not the Colorado River. Plant life has been found in Antarctica.

The world before the flood was totally different than the world today and so were the people.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Let's see. What can we surmise about the world before the flood?  Noah and his sons were probably much larger than the largest man alive today. They also lived longer. The earth had a firmament of water or ice in the upper atmosphere which blocked the uv and xrays from the sun. The air pressure and oxygen content was much greater which accounts for the growth of everything as well as the longevity and stamina of everything. Both the people and the animals (including the dinosaurs) were vegetarians. Footprints of human beings walking alongside dinosaurs have been found imbedded in limestone.
> 
> Now for the flood itself:  It rained 40 days but the waters beneath the surface of the earth sprang forth for 150 days and is what contributed to the flood the most. The flood is what caused the formation of the tremendous amounts of coal for the earth was like a hot house and trees and vegetation extended from pole to pole. The Grand Canyon was the result of the flood, not the Colorado River. Plant life has been found in Antarctica.
> 
> The world before the flood was totally different than the world today and so were the people.


The fundamentalist Christian ministries have found another victim.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see. What can we surmise about the world before the flood?  Noah and his sons were probably much larger than the largest man alive today. They also lived longer. The earth had a firmament of water or ice in the upper atmosphere which blocked the uv and xrays from the sun. The air pressure and oxygen content was much greater which accounts for the growth of everything as well as the longevity and stamina of everything. Both the people and the animals (including the dinosaurs) were vegetarians. Footprints of human beings walking alongside dinosaurs have been found imbedded in limestone.
> ...



Hardly fundamentalist Dear. I'm UR


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Well, dear. Your comically naive descriptions above mirrors the silliness that defines what the charlatans at any of the fundamentalist ministries promote. You folks are nothing if not predictable for your errors and falsehoods.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You one of the radical Islamists Dear?  You worship the false god and his DEAD false prophet?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You've abandoned any attempt to prop up the bogus claims that ooze from your creation ministries.

Good for you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/shrugs.....unlike you, I'm not a young earther......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


that's not fair.....you have less earth history to remember than I do......you only have to worry about 6000 years......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and God set that boat down on Ararat for a reason.  Ararat means, 'curse reversed'.
> ...


if all life crawled out of a mud puddle and evolved from the first single celled organism, how did the animals get to Australia and the Americas?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Has Hollie given up or are you her stand in until she gets over the fact that her perfect book, knew about  Noah too?  That must have stung, her thinking it was just a lying Christian "tale"  and all.
> ...


do you still think the Muslims didn't know about Noah?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > The biblical tale of Noah is a tale and fable, yes.
> ...


actually, in real life, you were the one who fucked up.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> ...


gosh, you have something in common with AIG!........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The geography of Norway isn't the issue.  Blue eyed genealogy is.  You've babbled so much about anything but, that you have become confused about what the rest of were discussing.  When did DNA Eve, stop having black children and switch to Asian and blue eyed babies, and red haired Irish?
> ...


wow....did you just figure that out now?.....all by yourself?......you must be a genius!........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > If only 2 canines were on board, then they had to evolve into all the different breeds.
> ...


wow, you believe that AND that the earth is 6000 years old?.......you're more of a fundamentalist than I thought!.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 15, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Let's see. What can we surmise about the world before the flood?  Noah and his sons were probably much larger than the largest man alive today. They also lived longer. The earth had a firmament of water or ice in the upper atmosphere which blocked the uv and xrays from the sun. The air pressure and oxygen content was much greater which accounts for the growth of everything as well as the longevity and stamina of everything. Both the people and the animals (including the dinosaurs) were vegetarians. Footprints of human beings walking alongside dinosaurs have been found imbedded in limestone.
> 
> Now for the flood itself:  It rained 40 days but the waters beneath the surface of the earth sprang forth for 150 days and is what contributed to the flood the most. The flood is what caused the formation of the tremendous amounts of coal for the earth was like a hot house and trees and vegetation extended from pole to pole. The Grand Canyon was the result of the flood, not the Colorado River. Plant life has been found in Antarctica.
> 
> The world before the flood was totally different than the world today and so were the people.



keep in mind that Hollie is a literalist......there were what, 23 "generations" between Adam and Noah......at best there were probably only about 5000 people that needed to drown.......


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


How could it be remembered by every culture when in the bible it killed everyone. We have written history all over the world from 4000 to 6000 with no written account of a worldwide flood.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Are you serious? Besides millions of peer tested papers and observations within the scientic community you are asking for information that is being put out there quicker than we can read it. Here is 265 pages on Evolution of the Genetic Code.
Recent evidence for evolution of the genetic code.


For a more general read, try this book.
The Ancestor s Tale A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution Richard Dawkins Yan Wong 9780618619160 Books - Amazon.ca

There are pdf versions all over the internet. Get back to me once you've read it. Take notes.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


/shrugs.....denial of your YEC'ist proclivities will anger the gods.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


It is curious how you fundies tend to scatter when you're charged with actually offering a coherent explanation of your flood tales.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Let's see. What can we surmise about the world before the flood?  Noah and his sons were probably much larger than the largest man alive today. They also lived longer. The earth had a firmament of water or ice in the upper atmosphere which blocked the uv and xrays from the sun. The air pressure and oxygen content was much greater which accounts for the growth of everything as well as the longevity and stamina of everything. Both the people and the animals (including the dinosaurs) were vegetarians. Footprints of human beings walking alongside dinosaurs have been found imbedded in limestone.
> ...


What's interesting is that you fundies will insist on a literal Adam, Noah and other characters of the bibles. The problem you YEC'ists can't resolve is that the planet and mankind have existed far longer than biblical timelines allow for.

Your literal, fundamentalist views surround the biblical absurdities of Ark tales, Adam and Eve and fruit theft, talking snakes, etc., leave you with many unresolvable dilemmas. Of course, you can do what fundies usually do to resolve these absurdities: Denial.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


was that a challenging concept for you.......it didn't kill everyone.....Noah's family was not killed.....everyone alive today had ancestors who survived the flood......as for 6000 years, don't let young earthers like Hollie mislead you.......if I remember correctly the mitochondrial Eve was around 40,000 - 50,000 years ago......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


unlike you, I don't insist on a 6000 year old earth.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


what don't you understand about the flood, Hollie?......does it conflict with your insistence on a young earth?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


but you're the young earther, Hollie.......not me......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


its ok to embrace your YEC'ist views. There are even groups of people just like you who will invent all sorts of fantastic excuses to support their literalist biblical views.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


While it will conflict with you YEC'ist views, there are myriad problems with your insistence on a 6,000 year old earth.

Foe example:

CH542 Plant survival in the Flood


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


While you YEC'ists insist on a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables, if you had ever read you bible tales, you could have discovered the many errors and inconsistencies in the flood tale.

For example:

How many animals did Noah take aboard the ark - The Panda s Thumb

Unfortunately, while you religious extremists continue to rattle on with your literal Young Earth worldview, the absurdities of such beliefs are impossible to deny.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Actually, you don't remember correctly. The problem you science loathing  YEC'ists face is that your science comes from trolling fundamentalist Christian creation ministries. They have an interest in keeping you ignorant about science. Your fears and superstitions that are derived from literal reading of bible tales and fables don't withstand scrutiny under the harsh light of objective evidence.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do some research. Even the American Indians had a flood story. Even the Babylonians.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I've already posted a rebuttal.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Actually, I don't waste any sleep worrying about a few dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, dinos are reptiles. Also if my memory serves me they have found intact dino eggs. It is no stretch of my own imagination to realize that many eggs of alligators, snakes, frogs, and even dinosaurs could have easily survived the flood and hatched out after the land dried.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


obviously you think its okay to embrace young earther views......that's why you have.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


why do you hate science?



> Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson estimated the mutation rate by looking at the mtDNA of groups of people whose ancestors migrated to areas at known times. One group was Australian aborigines, whose ancestors moved to the island-continent a then-calculated 30,000 years ago.[4] Since the three then knew how long it took for that group's mtDNA to diverge as well as how much it diverged, they determined the mutation rate. Using this rate, they determined that the most recent common ancestor lived 140,000 to 290,000 years ago (which they roughly averaged to 200,000 years ago). That was back in 1987. Since then, researchers have updated the estimate to 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. However, the margin for error for this estimate and the previous one are significant—when all of the variables are taken into account, the current range is more like 50,000 to 500,000.


NOVA Online Neanderthals on Trial Tracing Ancestry with MtDNA


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You fundies do get angry when your Ark stories are shown to be only tales and fables.

 As you have chosen to carefully avoid any attempt at addressing the absurdity of biblical Ark tales, here's another critique of the silliness that defines Arks and your 6,000 year old timeframe for the biblical flood that never happened:

CH512 Fitting animals aboard the Ark


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I asked in another forum when the flood occured and the only answer I got was around 4000 years ago. If you have another date I have yet to see you post it. So you are implying that the whole human race is a product if direct incest... twice? Hollie is not a young earth believer but most of those who believe in a world wide flood are.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

Who cares? Believe what you want, why does it keep you up at night that there are a lot of people who think you're sadly misled, and doomed to an eternity in hell if you don't open your eyes? It shouldn't bother you as much as it does.

Unless you have a niggling concern that they just might be right....


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That rebuttal you posted is from Keith Mason. He has a degree in Information Systems, whatever that is. He is not a scientists. Who would you believe on matters of science, the millions of scientists or a guy with a Informations Degree?


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Actually, I don't waste any sleep worrying about a few dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, dinos are reptiles. Also if my memory serves me they have found intact dino eggs. It is no stretch of my own imagination to realize that many eggs of alligators, snakes, frogs, and even dinosaurs could have easily survived the flood and hatched out after the land dried.


Holy shit you are an idiot. Dinosaurs are not reptiles. Some dinosaurs have chacteristics of reptiles just as other dinosaurs have characteristics of birds and mammals. Not only is your presumption that dinosaurs were actually alive athe same time as humans is so laughable, so didn't put into account the gestation period of most animals is less than a year and how was Noah going to feed the millions of spieces of dinosaurs. I don't believe I'm arguing this. I guess the old joke "The last time I heard this, I fell off my dinosaur" is a reality to you.


Just because you don't understand science, don't side with those who also don't understand it either.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Who cares? Believe what you want, why does it keep you up at night that there are a lot of people who think you're sadly misled, and doomed to an eternity in hell if you don't open your eyes? It shouldn't bother you as much as it does.
> 
> Unless you have a niggling concern that they just might be right....


You thumpers and your limp threats are a joke.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

The guy who makes the most sense.  Science has been proven wrong time and again. Evolution is unproven theory.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Floods happen all over the world. Of course you are going to get flood stories. But not worldwide floods. You have a better chance of seeing a dinosaur in your backyard.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I don't waste any sleep worrying about a few dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, dinos are reptiles. Also if my memory serves me they have found intact dino eggs. It is no stretch of my own imagination to realize that many eggs of alligators, snakes, frogs, and even dinosaurs could have easily survived the flood and hatched out after the land dried.
> ...



Gee, I wonder where those dinosaur eggs came from?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Still haven't researched it yet have you?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares? Believe what you want, why does it keep you up at night that there are a lot of people who think you're sadly misled, and doomed to an eternity in hell if you don't open your eyes? It shouldn't bother you as much as it does.
> ...



You sound jealous.

So if you don't believe, why do you care? That's a lot of obsessing about something that you don't care about.

And is TAZ a thumper? 

Maybe you should try actually reading the thread, honey.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Jealous that you live in trembling fear of angry, serial killer gawds?

Thanks, sweetie, you can keep those.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> It is curious how you fundies tend to scatter when you're charged with actually offering a coherent explanation of your flood tales.



What's even more curious is that you can't make a point without resorting to personal attacks.  What if I started every response to you with, " You whores believe..."
No one has scattered.  You have already recieved several responses to the OP. 
What you *won't* address is the Quran.  You whores said, "the Quran is true".
You scatter when the questioned is asked, " Did the Quran lie about Noah, or did you lie about the Quran?"


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'm not in fear at all, darling.

Sounds like you are. Sounds like you see a spook in every thought that other people have...maybe you should stop worrying about it.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> You fundies do get angry when your Ark stories are shown to be only tales and fables.



You whores sure get undone when you find out that your perfect book disagrees with you.  So did the Quran lie about Noah like you say the Bible did, or did you lie when you called the Quran true?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


sorry...I don't have a date......nor do I need one.....however, I will point out that studies of DNA have shown that all humans currently in existence are the descendants of a single woman who lived sometime between 50k and 500k (likely 120k-150k) years ago.....that might be a likely target....I know Hollie isn't a young earther, and she knows I'm not.....but she keeps pretending I am, so I reciprocate......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


no more so than you are.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > You fundies do get angry when your Ark stories are shown to be only tales and fables.
> 
> 
> 
> You whores sure get undone when you find out that your perfect book disagrees with you.  So did the Quran lie about Noah like you say the Bible did, or did you lie when you called the Quran true?


Wow. Aren't you the good Christian.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You're forgetting that it was you who entered the thread attempting to threaten people with the wrath of your angry gods.

Do the gods approve of your silly threats on their behalf?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Complex DNA put evolution in it's place.  Single celled amoeba's have complex DNA.  Evolution forbids that.  Evolution calls for simple to complex.  And since the discovery of DNA we have found out that DNA by design works to correct mutations, not reproduce them.  For one species to become another, the same mutation would have to occur without fail over and over.  A mutation is a mistake.  DNA would have to make perfect mistakes perfectly, and consistently, to end up a different species.  The missing links would litter the earth.
Google the maturing of an eye in the womb.  Note how many strands have to find their  match in the brain and attach to it's counterpart for sight to occur.  There is no simple to complex eye.
An eye is extremely complex from the beginning.   No chance sight.  No simple form of sight to become complex.  Even that one celled organism that crawled out of primordial soup was complex by design.   The first eye was complex to the extreme.
If Darwin had heard about DNA we would have never heard about Darwin.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> Wow. Aren't you the good Christian.



Yes I am.  And if I got your attention concerning your inability to debate without resorting to personal attacks, even better.  Don't like it?  Don't do it.
I explained the genealogy of Noah's wife and daughters-in-law.    Nothing threatening about it.  
Now, Did the Quran lie about Noah, or did you lie about the Quran?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Complex DNA put evolution in it's place.  Single celled amoeba's have complex DNA.  Evolution forbids that.  Evolution calls for simple to complex.  And since the discovery of DNA we have found out that DNA by design works to correct mutations, not reproduce it.  For one species to become another, the same mutation would have to occur without fail over and over.  A mutation is a mistake.  DNA would have to make perfect mistakes to end up a different species.
> Google the maturing of an eye in the womb.  Note how many strands have to find their  match in the brain and attach to it's counterpart for sight to occur.  There is no simple to complex eye.
> An eye is extremely complex from the beginning.   No chance sight.  No simple form of sight to become complex.  Even that one celled organism that crawled out of primordial soup was complex by design.
> If Darwin had heard about DNA we would have never heard about Darwin.


Well, sorry, but that pathetically inept attempt to discredit evolutionary science is boilerplate Answers in Genesis nonsense. 

Haven't you discovered by now that your fundie creation ministries have been so thoroughly discredited that to reiterate their nonsense discredits you?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Wow. Aren't you the good Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How sad that you won't acknowledge your own vulgarities.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.  
Quran + Hollie understanding = No Noah.
Quran truth or Hollie truth?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.
> Quran + Hollie understanding = No Noah.
> Quran truth or Hollie truth?


Ark tales are for you to resolve. 

With the Koran correcting the errors and falsehoods in the bibles, when are you going to convert to the true religion?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Sadder yet is your lack of knowledge of the Qu'ran.  
Noah built an ark, so sayeth the Qu'ran.  Do you dispute that fact?

If not, then Noah built an ark according to you.  Because according to you the Quran does not lie.  
Is the Quran lying about Noah, or are you?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I don't waste any sleep worrying about a few dinosaurs. If I remember correctly, dinos are reptiles. Also if my memory serves me they have found intact dino eggs. It is no stretch of my own imagination to realize that many eggs of alligators, snakes, frogs, and even dinosaurs could have easily survived the flood and hatched out after the land dried.
> ...



How the ignorant do rave. It's amazing that the ignorant holler the loudest to drown out their own lack of knowledge.

Dinosaur - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie, I have nothing to resolve.  According to *MY* holy book,* and YOURS, *my answer to the OP is the correct answer.  Your answer was to believe the Quran.  The Quran supports my view, not yours.
So, Did Noah build an ark or did you lie to us about the validity of the Quran?  You said I could trust the Quran and it says Noah did indeed need that ark.  Why don't you trust it?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Science is in dispute over the flood as it is with almost everything else. Science refuses to take the Bible's word for the date, With carbon dating and it's known and proven faults, science has determined the flood to  have occurred 5000 years ago.  Science disputes the Bible record and claims the flood was a tsunami caused by a comet hitting the earth. In any case, science has pretty much accepted that a flood did occur.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's pretty much accepted you're clueless.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, I have nothing to resolve.  According to *MY* holy book,* and YOURS, *my answer to the OP is the correct answer.  Your answer was to believe the Quran.  The Quran supports my view, not yours.
> So, Did Noah build an ark or did you lie to us about the validity of the Quran?  You said I could trust the Quran and it says Noah did indeed need that ark.  Why don't you trust it?


You have your eternal salvation to resolve. Your corrupted bibles are leading you astray.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Why on earth would I convert when you have told us that the Quran lies?  It lied to you about Noah!  What good is your holy book if even *you* can't believe it?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Accepted by who?  You?  LOL!!  Why not do some research on the subject?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

That would help Hollie.  She was under the assumption that the flood was a Biblical concept.  She didn't know her holy book gave credence to the Biblical account.  
She does NOW.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> That would help Hollie.  She was under the assumption that the flood was a Biblical concept.  She didn't know her holy book gave credence to the Biblical account.
> She does NOW.


What holy book?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I didn't threaten anyone, you poor deluded nutbar. 

When I tell you I think your rejection of God will land you in hell, that's not a threat. It's just my belief.

But being an ignorant and fearful yahoo, you can't distinguish between the two.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Complex DNA put evolution in it's place.  Single celled amoeba's have complex DNA.  Evolution forbids that.  Evolution calls for simple to complex.  And since the discovery of DNA we have found out that DNA by design works to correct mutations, not reproduce it.  For one species to become another, the same mutation would have to occur without fail over and over.  A mutation is a mistake.  DNA would have to make perfect mistakes to end up a different species.
> ...



I liked the one where the reporter's little son's snail died and the reporter put the dead snail into some mud, let the mud dry and took it to the lab.  The lab took the snail and scientifically dated it. The reporter thanked the lab technician, smiled to himself and left with the lab's official document attesting that the snail had lived from 25000 to 35000 years ago.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I made up nothing. I am quoting the Bible.  They were perfect in their generations.
> ...




The Koran does have Noah and the ark.
Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement
_007.064_ 
*YUSUFALI:* But they rejected him, and We delivered him, and *those with him, in the Ark*: but We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our signs. They were indeed a blind people! 
*PICKTHAL:* But they denied him, so We saved him and those with him in the ship, and We drowned those who denied Our tokens. Lo! they were blind folk. 
*SHAKIR:* But they called him a liar, so We delivered him and those with him in the ark, and We drowned those who rejected Our communications; surely they were a blind people


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

What holy book?
Why the one you speak so highly of here:



> "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
> Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.



So does the Quran lie about Noah, or did you lie about the Quran?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> What holy book?
> Why the one you speak so highly of here:
> 
> 
> ...


Do your bibles lie about the truth or does the Koran correct the errors and falsehoods.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


I like the one about talking snakes, 350 year old men, dinosaurs on Arks and a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


I thought lying for the sake of religion was an Islamist thing. But like much of Christian theology, that's been stolen too.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Complex DNA put evolution in it's place.  Single celled amoeba's have complex DNA.  Evolution forbids that.  Evolution calls for simple to complex.  And since the discovery of DNA we have found out that DNA by design works to correct mutations, not reproduce them.  For one species to become another, the same mutation would have to occur without fail over and over.  A mutation is a mistake.  DNA would have to make perfect mistakes perfectly, and consistently, to end up a different species.  The missing links would litter the earth.
> Google the maturing of an eye in the womb.  Note how many strands have to find their  match in the brain and attach to it's counterpart for sight to occur.  There is no simple to complex eye.
> An eye is extremely complex from the beginning.   No chance sight.  No simple form of sight to become complex.  Even that one celled organism that crawled out of primordial soup was complex by design.   The first eye was complex to the extreme.
> If Darwin had heard about DNA we would have never heard about Darwin.


I Wanted to address this post of yours because it displays a basic, fundamental and grossly incorrect presentation of evolutionary theory. As is so typical for fundamentalist Christian hacks, your revulsion for science is typically connected with a complete lack of schooling on the subject.

Evolution is not directional. It does not advance linearly or directionally from dumb to smart or from simple to complex. The impression you have that it does so literally reeks of something you read on a creationist website. If that is the case, you are promoting falsehoods on their behalf. Lay off the fundie creation ministries. They're a joke and you are simply a stooge who promotes their lies and falsehoods.

Sometimes evolution does makes things more complex (bacteria to annelid worm, for example). But sometimes it makes things less complex (free living organisms to degenerate parasites, for thousands of examples). Most of the time it does neither. The only direction evolution always moves is towards more fit. And since the definition of fitness is dependent on and changes with the environment, it is a constantly moving target.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Are you Muslim?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.
> Quran + Hollie understanding = No Noah.
> Quran truth or Hollie truth?


actually, that might be a valid formula, since "Hollie understanding" is a negative number......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.
> ...


Your typical inability to add anything but pointlesness.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.
> ...



Hollie can't help it. Hollie is a product of years and years of slavery and having to work in the fields all day before being beaten half to death by her slave master.

On a serious note, Hollie attended an all-Black school. Totally segregated. You all know how slow those Blacks read and forget about math. She was also in total fear she would be mugged or worse by the Black thug males in her classroom.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

The fact that the Qur'an  does* not *correct the biblical account of Noah, but to the contrary reiterates it, should be enough proof for you that Noah built an ark.  We'll tackle the snake thing as soon as you admit that Noah built an ark according to *you*.  Because *you* read it in the Koran,* your *book of truth.  It is *you *that insists that the Quran tells the truth, right?
And it tells you that Noah built an ark.  Therefore you believe that Noah built the ark.  Either that, or you believe that the Quran can't be trusted.  Which is it?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


It seems all the angry xtians can offer Is spam.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > What holy book?
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Bible + Qu'ran = NOAH.
> ...



 I know! Right?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

I can offer and address direct quotes.  Like the one where you say there is no story about Noah in the Quran.  What you can't do is admit when you are wrong.  If you don't admit it, we will have to refer to Hollie's Folly every time you try an end around.  Haven't you suffered enough?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> The fact that the Qur'an  does* not *correct the biblical account of Noah, but to the contrary reiterates it, should be enough proof for you that Noah built an ark.  We'll tackle the snake thing as soon as you admit that Noah built an ark according to *you*.  Because *you* read it in the Koran,* your *book of truth.  It is *you *that insists that the Quran tells the truth, right?
> And it tells you that Noah built an ark.  Therefore you believe that Noah built the ark.  Either that, or you believe that the Quran can't be trusted.  Which is it?


Your eternal salvation is at stake. You can convert and embrace the holy text that has perfected your corrupt religion or you can spend eternity as an infidel among ISIL.

Which is it?


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



No, she's just an anti-Christian bigot.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



At least I know what the talking snake is.  You poor little "victim".


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


I noticed you have avoided addressing my pistol regarding your ignorant comments regarding evolution. That's not surprising. You Christian extremists are typically wholly ignorant regarding the science you vilify.

In typical fashion, you and the other fundies offer nothing but childish sniping.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Just reacting to you and the collection of fundie cranks as you wallow in your own self-hate.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You're the victim of your own ineptitude.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that the Qur'an  does* not *correct the biblical account of Noah, but to the contrary reiterates it, should be enough proof for you that Noah built an ark.  We'll tackle the snake thing as soon as you admit that Noah built an ark according to *you*.  Because *you* read it in the Koran,* your *book of truth.  It is *you *that insists that the Quran tells the truth, right?
> ...


Hollies' Folly.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


????....addressing your pistol?.....


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that the Qur'an  does* not *correct the biblical account of Noah, but to the contrary reiterates it, should be enough proof for you that Noah built an ark.  We'll tackle the snake thing as soon as you admit that Noah built an ark according to *you*.  Because *you* read it in the Koran,* your *book of truth.  It is *you *that insists that the Quran tells the truth, right?
> ...


Well, hell, if you think the Quran is full of garbage, I'm going to trust your judgment!  
No thanks Quran, I'll stick with the one true God, The God of Abraham!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Pointless spam.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


????....forever pointless?.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


That's a false gawd. A false book gave you a false gawd.


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Poor honey, another word you don't understand...

"fundy".

It seems you're fond of using words incorrectly. While I'm sure it provides hours of entertainment amongst the caseworkers who manage your life, online it's just tedious.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You whores can't answer the first OP so you try to sweep it under the rug by switching to a new subject.  Let's deal with Noah before you run into the next wall....

So, did Noah build an ark or did the Quran lie?  Answer that and we can move on to your next confusion.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


well if your pistol about evolution was mud puddles, I would say you're firing nothing but blanks......


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Do your bibles lie about the truth or does the Koran correct the errors and falsehoods.



Do you follow the infernal book of evil? The filthy Koran?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.

I'm afraid your YEC'ist indoctrination has left you dumbfounded regarding science.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> It seems all the angry xtians can offer Is spam.



What is a "Zitian?"

Is this a special term Muzzie Beasts use? Like Kafir and Dhimmi? Can I find it in the infernal book of evil, the Koran?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Are you a Muslim?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Do your bibles lie about the truth or does the Koran correct the errors and falsehoods.
> ...


No, short stop. I'm just explaining to the fundie cranks that a book self-proclaiming it's own inerrancy does not make the inerrant. 

Just having a little fun with the xtian extremists.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > It seems all the angry xtians can offer Is spam.
> ...


Check your spelling, short stop.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> No, short stop. I'm just explaining to the fundie cranks that a book self-proclaiming it's own inerrancy does not make the inerrant.
> 
> Just having a little fun with the xtian extremists.



Okay, carry on then. But what is a Zytain?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Phonetically it would be "zytain" I suppose.

I've never heard of a Xtian. Is it like a Dhimmi?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'm curious....do you realize how stupid it makes you look to continue to call everyone young earthers, even when its obvious they don't believe in a young earth?........


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



But I protest.  I still know who the snake was. So, who's the victim?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Do realize how stupid you look when you attempt to deny your YEC'ism while you rattle on with defending literal Ark tales.

I'll answer for you because you have difficulty answering with coherent sentences: you look pretty stupid.

Tell us about the dinosaurs that were on Noah's pleasure cruise.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You are your own victim.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



Some more of that rap music trash?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


With a historical and geographic perspective, yes.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I thought you were preaching in the other thread how I had made you a victim because the whites owned everything and you had to attend an all-Black school where the only book you had to read was an old moth-eaten Koran.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


So would you care to say what religion/spiritual being/none you follow?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.



Like your expertise regarding the Qu'ran?


Hollie's Folly.....


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...



The Babylonia mystery religion.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well if that's the case then when you said No Noah, no flood, no such tall tale in the truth book, the Koran, you weren't telling us the truth?  Which brings me to my next question.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> The Babylonia mystery religion.



Shit, after watching Algore and the AGW thingy, I'm starting a cult.

That mutherfucker raked in a forture, close to a billion dollars. Stupid people and crooks can make you filthy rich!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I made no representation to being an expert. I just know a great deal more than you.

Not unlike your ignorant notions of biological evolution being a straight line from less to more complex. Do yourself a favor and stay away from your fundie Christian ministries when you need data on science matters. 

Your fundie Christian ministries have an interest in keeping you ignorant. Don't be an accomplice.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 16, 2014)

Uncensored2008 said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The Babylonia mystery religion.
> ...



Yeah. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have really milked the Black folks. You did mention something about "stupid" didn't you?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie, you think your smarter than everyone and you have no humility. Someday someone is going to use kindness to get close to you and burn you to the wick. Please stop playing such games.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


There was no biblical flood. 

Your fundie Christian creation ministries will coach you otherwise but why would you choose to be an accomplice to fraud and ignorance?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 16, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie, you think your smarter than everyone and you have no humility. Someday someone is going to use kindness to get close to you and burn you to the wick. Please stop playing such games.



And that clearly is not possible, given that *I* am smarter than everyone else.

No, seriously, I am...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie, you think your smarter than everyone and you have no humility. Someday someone is going to use kindness to get close to you and burn you to the wick. Please stop playing such games.





The Irish Ram said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > Both you and the other fundie crank should learn about matters you know nothing of.
> ...


You're befuddled, you're "speechless", and left to spam the thread.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
> Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.



How is the Qu'ran true, if it forgot to correct the Bible on the whole Noah, flood thing?  And instead usurpeth the story?  Or did the Qu'ran say that just to mess with ya?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

> I made no representation to being an expert. I just know a great deal more than you.



Odd that, considering I was the one that enlightened you about what was in the Bible* and* the Qu'ran..........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
> > Why "quote" the bibles when the Koran has superseded them. The Koran is true because the Koran says it is true.
> 
> 
> ...


How are the various bibles to be accepted as true when the tales and fables are demonstrably false?

Do you have a specific need and desire to promote the biblical errors and falsehoods as true when you have been given the knowledge of the errors and falsehoods?

Do your various gods approve of your promotion of errors and falsehoods.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > I made no representation to being an expert. I just know a great deal more than you.
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that, considering I was the one that enlightened you about what was in the Bible* and* the Qu'ran..........


Odd that, considering you accept the biblical errors and falsehoods which have been corrected in the Koran.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Except for Noah.  Apparently, they both agree on that subject.  Out of our little foursome here,  the only one that isn't in agreement is you.  
You didn't know that Noah was in the Qur'an when you used the Qur'an as an example of the stupidity of the Bible and the "truth" of the Qur'an.  And your ego won't let you admit that.  
And I am getting uncomfortable in reminding you of it.  So, I am going to take your word for it, that you knew that all along what is in the Qur'an, and was just messing with the fundy.  Good one.   You got me. 
Peace to you.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

What if the earth had two historical realities. One with dinosaurs and one with a flood. Both are true and both place us in this point in time and space. And what if the Bible is explaining one past and non-religious is explaining the other and what if the future has two realities one where people are saved and one where everyone dies and the Bible is here to tell us how to get to the reality in which we live, those of us who choose it. I do not know any of this but I am tried of reading hundreds and hundreds of posts about stuff people are so sure of because they know everything. Only uncensored2008 really knows everything.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

And if the guy is winking shouldn't he be leaning on the side he is winking on?! Come on already!


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

Actually, dimensions would make both realities possible, but not in the same dimension at the same time.  
I really don't think this distance between what the Bible says and what the scientists discover exists.  

If the Bible relates an incident such as Christ appearing  out of nowhere at will, or walking through a wall, then the Bible has told me that at least six dimensions must exist.  Science tells me there are only 4.  That tells me one of them is wrong.  Then science tells me that there are probably 10 dimensions and maybe an infinite # of dimensions, and that tells me science is getting closer to discovering God.  I like science and  physics.  God used both to create our environment.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually, dimensions would make both realities possible, but not in the same dimension at the same time.
> I really don't think this distance between what the Bible says and what the scientists discover exists.
> 
> If the Bible relates an incident such as Christ appearing  out of nowhere at will, or walking through a wall, then the Bible has told me that at least six dimensions must exist.  Science tells me there are only 4.  That tells me one of them is wrong.  Then science tells me that there are probably 10 dimensions and maybe an infinite # of dimensions, and that tells me science is getting closer to discovering God.  I like science and  physics.  God used both to create our environment.


The many world theory would presumably allow the flood/dinosaur coexistence. There is also the parallel universe theory but I am not sure if this works. I have not given these any real consideration however since I am of the flood reality only. Having spoken to God I am pretty sure I know which history I came from.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Did you actually read your own link. Go back and read it all.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm not. I believe in evolution which is demonstrably true. If one were to believe in the story of Noah and the ark then the only way to populate the earth was the way of incest.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 16, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Researched what. The biblical account of Noah's Ark was taken directly from Mespotamian flood stories in the Epic of Gilgamesh & the Epic of Atrahasis. The Lac Courte Oreilles flood story does not involve the entire world. The area in which they lived (Wisconsin and Minnesota) flooded all the time.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 16, 2014)

But Tuatara, wouldn't mitochondrial Eve have run into the same problem?  If she is the mother of all who fathered her 1st child, unless his conception was a virgin birth, and wouldn't she have had to have sex with him to produce another?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 16, 2014)

I heard this anecdote once where the professor says, "I can teach you to do a particular surgery in one semester. It will take the rest of the three score -edit 6 - and a half years to learn what to do when something goes wrong." You can read the story of Noah but it will take you the rest of the Bible to understand it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


strike 2, I don't argue for a literal interpretation of Noah's ark
strike 3, I don't claim there were dinosaurs on an ark
double header, you're still a Hollie's Folly.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > "Quoting" the bibles is pointless when it is the veracity of the bibles that is in question. The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed ns of man.
> ...


Hollie, you couldn't demonstrate how to prevent hyperventilation with a paper bag.........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 16, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



well there you are.....you and I both believe in the evolution which is demonstrably true.......now, do you believe in the evolution which isn't?......'cuz I don't believe in that part......some folks think that human beings evolved from some other creature (which isn't demonstrably true)......now obviously THOSE folks have to believe in incest......or did they think there were TWO first humans.....


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 16, 2014)

Here is another problem with Noah's Ark--where did all the rain come from?

If it came from a cloud cover that covered the world, the shear thickness f that cloud cover would have presented problems to most living things on Earth.  On the other hand, if it was rain that came directly from Heaven, where is all that water now?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium  effect, a perfect growing atmosphere.  It had never rained before the flood.  And the rest came from underground.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> But Tuatara, wouldn't mitochondrial Eve have run into the same problem?  If she is the mother of all who fathered her 1st child, unless his conception was a virgin birth, and wouldn't she have had to have sex with him to produce another?


Stop looking at things in a simplistic view.



> The mitochondrial clade which Mitochondrial Eve defines is the species _Homo sapiens sapiens_ itself, or at least the current population or "chronospecies" as it exists today. In principle, earlier Eves can also be defined going beyond the species, for example one who is ancestral to both modern humanity and Neanderthals, or, further back, an "Eve" ancestral to all members of genus _Homo_ and chimpanzees in genus _Pan_. According to current nomenclature, Mitochondrial Eve's haplogroup was within mitochondrial haplogroup L because this macro-haplogroup contains all surviving human mitochondrial lineages today, and she must predate the emergence of L0.
> 
> The variation of mitochondrial DNA between different people can be used to estimate the time back to a common ancestor, such as Mitochondrial Eve. This works because, along any particular line of descent, mitochondrial DNA accumulates mutations at the rate of approximately one every 3,500 years per nucleotide.[30][31][32] A certain number of these new variants will survive into modern times and be identifiable as distinct lineages. At the same time some branches, including even very old ones, come to an end, when the last family in a distinct branch has no daughters.
> 
> *Mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common matrilineal ancestor for all modern humans*. *Whenever one of the two most ancient branch lines dies out, the MRCA will move to a more recent female ancestor*, *always the most recent mother to have more than one daughter with living maternal line descendants alive today*. The number of mutations that can be found distinguishing modern people is determined by two criteria: firstly and most obviously, the time back to her, but secondly and less obviously by the varying rates at which new branches have come into existence and old branches have become extinct. By looking at the number of mutations which have been accumulated in different branches of this family tree, and looking at which geographical regions have the widest range of least related branches, the region where Eve lived can be proposed.









Through random drift or selection the female-lineage will trace back to a single female, such as Mitochondrial Eve. In this example over five generations colors represent extinct matrilineal lines and black the matrilineal line descended from mtDNA MRCA.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Obviously, you're now backtracking on your earlier claims in support of Ark tales.

That's the problem you YEC'ists face. You're so befuddled that when your silly Ark tales are exposed as fraud, you tend to scramble into defensive postures.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


But I have demonstrated your silly claims as being fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium  effect, a perfect growing atmosphere.  It had never rained before the flood.  And the rest came from underground.


Which is the view that is promoted on Christian fundamentalist websites. 

How sad that you have bought in to that fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There are not two competing versions of evolution. The problem is that your version of evolution is the one promoted by YEC'ist Christian ministries. That version is a fraudulent collection of falsified claims and religious nonsense.

You are an accomplice to fraud.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> But Tuatara, wouldn't mitochondrial Eve have run into the same problem?  If she is the mother of all who fathered her 1st child, unless his conception was a virgin birth, and wouldn't she have had to have sex with him to produce another?


The real problem is that you don't have even a middling understanding of the terms you use. 

Mitochondrial Eve is not the "mother of all". That's a fraudulent description that is promoted on fundie Christian websites.

As usual, you have allowed frauds and charlatans to enlist your help in their fraud.

What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> Here is another problem with Noah's Ark--where did all the rain come from?
> 
> If it came from a cloud cover that covered the world, the shear thickness f that cloud cover would have presented problems to most living things on Earth.  On the other hand, if it was rain that came directly from Heaven, where is all that water now?


the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


making shit up again?......not a sound way to win arguments, Hollie's Folly.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol.....you can't even remember what my claims are......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


sure there are......there's the evolution proven by science, which all of you refer to whenever you want to claim that science has proven evolution......and then there's the crap you pretend has been proven by science even though no one has ever done it......and if you want to prove that isn't true you can always trot out that evidence that a single celled organism has ever evolved into a multicelled organism like I've been begging someone to do for the last ten months....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve



from your link.....
"The _Mitochondrial Eve_ of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is *NOT* our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the *most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today with respect to matrilineal descent*. "

doesn't it seem obvious that if the ME is the most recent common ancestor of all humans with respect to matrillineal descent that she is also 1) our common ancestor and 2) our common genetic ancestor?.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Making up what?

Ark tales are just that: tales.

You and the other YEC'ists have had ample opportunity defend the Ark tales and fables and you still haven't done so.

So, tell us about the dinosaurs on the Ark.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



lol..... you have hoped to sidestep and waffle around the challenges to your specious claims.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > What if anything is a Mitochondrial Eve
> ...


Doesn't it seem obvious that you don't understand what you read?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're convinced that there are two versions of evolution. There is evolutionary science that is supported by diverse disciplines such as biology, chemistry, paleontology, archeology, etc..

Then there is the version that is promoted by your Young Earth Creation ministries.

Do you need further guidance as to why your version is fraudulent?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Here is another problem with Noah's Ark--where did all the rain come from?
> ...


The mantra of the YEC'ist.

Ancient fears and superstitions are alive and well among the religious extremists.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


list my specious claims, Hollie the Folly, and link to the posts in which I made them......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....no.....I think pretty much everyone here read it the same way........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


true.......and then there's the part you've been unable to prove..........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Pretty typical. When your arguments fail, you resort to childish name-calling.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > amrchaos said:
> ...


its the only argument you have left, so you keep trying to use it.......doesn't that make you feel impotent?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol......ironic......
here's your chance to seize the higher ground, Hollie......trot out the list of my specious claims and dazzle the world with your intelligent repartee.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm not aware that you are tasked with making such assessments.

I understand reading and reading comprehension is difficult for you but reading one sentence out of an entire article and coming to conclusions with that is pretty much expected from those who only seek to reinforce their fundamentalist views.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Hey, it's your pointless argument.

Why get pissy when your pointless arguments are shown to be pointless?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


lol.... ironic.....

You ignorant fundies sure have a way of degrading your own attempts at argument.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....it isn't one sentence out of an entire article......it is #2 of her "Here are some points to note:"........and I think its pretty obvious that "she is not our common ancestor" and "she is the most recent common ancestor of all humans alive" are contradictory.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



I can't prove your YEC'ist fantasy world of supernatural entities, talking snakes and gawds who lie.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics  (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
"The existence of the _Mitochondrial Eve_ is *NOT* a theory; it is a mathematical fact".........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's one sentence out of an entire article. I'm afraid that your lies won't prevent others from reading the larger content.

_"The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in *all* the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA."
_
You feel really stupid for lying, right?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


fossils are evidence that the creatures existed......under the tenets of your religion there is a link of causation between them......I don't share your myths......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
> "The existence of the _Mitochondrial Eve_ is *NOT* a theory; it is a mathematical fact".........


Watch yourself there, fundie dude.

The existence of _Mitochondrial Eve _is in direct contradiction to your biblical flood tales, tales and fables of eternal damnation for fruit theft and your bible tales of a 6,000 year old earth.

What's a YEC'ist to do?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The entirety of the fossil evidence is a conspiracy among every school, college and university across the globe, at least according to you and those like you from the YEC'ist crowd.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lying about what?......her DNA exists in all humans now living.....the fact we also have other ancestors doesn't change the fact that she is THE ancestor that all of us have in common......that would in fact make her our common ancestor........is that difficult for you to understand?......

that means my father and my mother are descended from her, as is my wife and both my adopted children.....my grandparents, my wife's grandparents and the birth parents of both my children......your parents, your grandparents......every single person who reads this board......

in the context of this thread......if there was a flood.....and everyone that existed prior to the flood was killed......nothing at all would change.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


conspiracy?...no....just ignorance on the part of those that think they've actually proven something with it.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another of her "points to note" which you may find of interest, since you earlier expressed some disbelief regarding the existence of a ME.....
> ...


see what I mean?.....you're incapable of coming up with an argument that isn't dependent on pretending I'm a young earther......that's why you can't win an argument.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There was no flood. You're desperately hoping to do damage control as the timeline of _mitochondrial DNA _is in direct contradiction to bible tales of floods, Arks, magical gawds and fruit theft from magical gardens.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


See what I mean? You're unable to present a consistent argument because anything that contradicts your fantasy world of a 6,000 year old planet is rejected as conspiracy.

What is truly laughable about YEC'ism is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales and fables.

As we see with regularity, YEC'ists can offer no explanations (other than regurgitating their fundamentalist Christian dogma) of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


isn't it direct evidence that somewhere between 50k and 500k years ago all of humanity descended from a single woman?.......isn't there also direct evidence in the ancestral stories from Australia, South America, Africa, and Asia that in ancient times floods killed all but a handful of survivors?......everyone alive descended from a flood survivor in Africa who we call Mitochondrial Eve.......don't deny science......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


.....once again your only argument is that you want to pretend I believe in a young earth......why is it you have no other arguments?.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


What little attempt at argument you can muster is in defense of YEC'ists dogma.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that disagreements with regard to tales and fables in the bibles is between people who have different views of the same tales and fables.The particular perspective which you might have, or the leaders at your madrassah might have, do not have any special status. Your YEC'ist views are just boilerplate typical among fundamentalists


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're still hoping to salvage any bit of your earlier comments that were nothing more than your inability to comprehend more than a single sentence in a lengthy article.

You still haven't read the article and been able to proceed past your YEC'ist views relative to Ark tales and a planet far older than 6,000 years.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

Hollie said:


> more than a single sentence in a lengthy article.


lengthy article?.....it wasn't even a full page.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > more than a single sentence in a lengthy article.
> ...


Even that was too much for you.

Obviously, you're unable to resolve the science of DNA vs. your YEC'ist views of Noah's boat ride and a 6,000 year old earth.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

It can be solved with the information in Genesis.
The very first sentence is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  Period.  *There are no 24 hour days yet.  That whole process can not be be calculated in earth time, because while there was an earth, there was no earth time yet, or time spent on making the earth habitable for humans yet. *That comes later.
So lets put that first sentence in scientific terms.
We live in a big galaxy.  And it spins at an incredible 490,000 miles an hour. And even at that speed it takes 200 million years just to make one rotation.

And* then *He created a billion more of them, while earth remained void and in the dark.   How ever long it took him to finish all of that, that is how old the earth is.
^
God created all of that in eternal time, which we have no way of calculating. And then, *after that*, He turned His concentration on our home, earth.  The power source of God, The Holy Spirit, moved over earth's surface when God said to and that movement created light.  But only when God separated the light from the darkness did night and day occur.  Everything up to that point was still being done in eternal time, not Rolex time.

In fact, our concept of time doesn't occur until Genesis 1:14


> *Genesis 1:14-19*
> 14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—*the fourth day*



We try to measure the age of the earth by the timeline that wasn't even established until the fourth day of earth's renovation (not creation).  We can't.  Earth was created before there was a delineation of time. Man was created after it. 
How old is earth? We need to look at God's watch for that answer, not Timex.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> It can be solved with the information in Genesis.
> The very first sentence is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  Period.  *There are no 24 hour days yet.  That whole process can not be be calculated in earth time, because while there was an earth, there was no earth time yet, or time spent on making the earth habitable for humans yet. *That comes later.
> So lets put that first sentence in scientific terms.
> We live in a big galaxy.  And it spins at an incredible 490,000 miles an hour. And even at that speed it takes 200 million years just to make one rotation.
> ...


Thank all of the gawds for the Enlightenment.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

Or just the one that loves you more than you have the capacity to understand...


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Or just the one that loves you more than you have the capacity to understand...


that sets a mighty low standard.........


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

lol@Proph.  Be nice to Hollie. Her scientists think she may be DEvolving now.  I hope she's fond of bananas.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Or just the one that loves you more than you have the capacity to understand...
> ...


We can always count on pointlessness from the YEC'ist.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

God bless you Hollie.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> lol@Proph.  Be nice to Hollie. Her scientists think she may be DEvolving now.  I hope she's fond of bananas.


The bananas reference is pretty typical for ignorant fundamentalists trying to make the monkeys / evolution association.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> God bless you Hollie.


Your gods are serial mass murderers. I'll pass on any blessing from such horrible gods.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

I'm a child of the Most High.  It hard to relate to a monkey, but one good thing about devolving, you're already used to slinging shit at people....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 17, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I'm a child of the Most High.  It hard to relate to a monkey, but one good thing about devolving, you're already used to slinging shit at people....


Lewd, crude and rude. Now there's an example of the Religion of Hate.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't hate you Hollie.  Just because you don't know the Qur'an as well as you thought you did, requires correction, not hate.  I really do hope God blesses you in spite of yourself. 
Here's a little hug for ya.

*Proverbs 8:17* _I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Love, 
God._


----------



## peach174 (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium  effect, a perfect growing atmosphere.  It had never rained before the flood.  And the rest came from underground.
> ...



That is because it is in the Bible.
Genesis 2: 4-6
 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens and every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and _there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground._


----------



## peach174 (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



If it is so false why is the book of Daniel and Revelation coming true right before our very eyes and in the order that they were written?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Sorry, but literal rendering of biblical tales and fables are drenched in inconsistencies, errors and yes, absurdities.

I've posted it before.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


I have no reason to accept that what you claim is true.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 18, 2014)

Have you read Daniel and Revelation Hollie?
If you have then look at what is happing right now in the world.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Have you read Daniel and Revelation Hollie?
> If you have then look at what is happing right now in the world.



I don't doubt that if you're _looking_ to find correlations you will find them. But honestly, how is that helpful? Are you prepping for the Endtimes?

Christianity is only one religion of others which claim to predict the Endtimes. As the tale unfolds, 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 neither 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 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.

Sorry, I conclude otherwise.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you read Daniel and Revelation Hollie?
> ...



That is your prerogative to do so.
It will become very clear to everyone on Earth that God is real and especially when Jesus returns to rule for the 1,000 years.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Please cite a single inconsistency in the Bible.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


I am going to withdraw that request. I just did a search and apparently some people have given the topic a lot of attention. I am going to enjoy going over this one, probably start a new thread later.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


I cited a litany of them with an objective evaluation of the genesis fable. 

Otherwise,  you can do a search and find a great many. You're denial is not an objective evaluation.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Such thinking is harmful to humanity. There's no reason to conclude that any gods are going to return to earth in some climactic battle. And as time goes by, and gods _don't return_ to this earth, as _gods don't_ prove salvation, religions will fade. We already see it happening as people revise their religions or re-write them as they go.

But hey, why be concerned about man's negative impact to the environment? Jeebus is coming so none of it will matter. Trying to make the world a better place? Screw that! Jeebus is coming and all those non-Christians who don't accept the coercive threats are going to burn. 

Yee haw.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


I cited a litany of them with an objective evaluation of the genesis fable.

Otherwise,  you can do a search and find a great many. You're denial is not an objective evaluation.[/QUOTE]
There is a God and the Bible is his book so whether he or man put those inconsistencies inthere


Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I do not know how much of this I am actually going to do. I found the page:
Bible Inconsistencies Bible Contradictions 

Some of these are in the NT and some are between the NT and the OT which are of no concern to me. Some are from a lack of understanding such as what is 'light' or when something is said not to be done and is done or God is a merciful God and God is a terrible God, those are not inconsistencies. There is the supposed inconsistency in: 
2SA 6:23 Michal was childless. 
2SA 21:8 (KJV) She had five sons.

* 2 Samuel 6:23King James Version (KJV)*
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

* 2 Samuel 21:8King James Version (KJV)*
8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

It clearly says that she brought those five up for Barzillai which can be further supported by:
*1 Kings 2:7* But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother.

So obviously this guy just was not doing his homework. 

Is there any inconsistency in specific you would like me to look up?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


There is a God and the Bible is his book so whether he or man put those inconsistencies inthere


Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I do not know how much of this I am actually going to do. I found the page:
Bible Inconsistencies Bible Contradictions 

Some of these are in the NT and some are between the NT and the OT which are of no concern to me. Some are from a lack of understanding such as what is 'light' or when something is said not to be done and is done or God is a merciful God and God is a terrible God, those are not inconsistencies. There is the supposed inconsistency in:
2SA 6:23 Michal was childless.
2SA 21:8 (KJV) She had five sons.

* 2 Samuel 6:23King James Version (KJV)*
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

* 2 Samuel 21:8King James Version (KJV)*
8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

It clearly says that she brought those five up for Barzillai which can be further supported by:
*1 Kings 2:7* But shew kindness unto the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be of those that eat at thy table: for so they came to me when I fled because of Absalom thy brother.

So obviously this guy just was not doing his homework.

Is there any inconsistency in specific you would like me to look up?[/QUOTE]
With reference to your list, why not start at the top and proceed through the list?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

Did you write the list?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Did you write the list?


How is it possible that the gods would allow their message to humanity to be so carelessly edited?

Did the gods not proof-read the bibles?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Did you write the list?
> ...


There is one God and one Bible. The one and only text of God is the Old Testament. I agree with you 100% that the rest of those gods and bibles have serious issues.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


To be fair, there is one conception of God(s) as configured in the bibles.

However, there are (and have been) many human conceptions of gods throughout history. There's nothing that separates your gods from any of the other gods.


----------



## GreenBean (Oct 18, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?




This Noah story was borrowed from a Babylonian text called the Epic of Gilgamesh. 

The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BCE.   This does not allow enough time for humans to repopulate the earth. 

In 2000 BC only 350 years after the flood the population of the world was 27 million. To go from a population of eight to a population of 27 million in 350 years would require a population growth rate of 136.07%. 


That is 133% more than the fastest growing portions of the world today, not probable and not feasible.

The flood , if it occurred , was most likely not a global phenomena - the asians and sub-sahara africans  were not effected.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Perhaps I should reiterate my tale for you. I should really put it in my sig or something. I have had this kind of running conversation with God over last few years/decades or so. I was not raised in a religious family so I was never really exposed to organized religion. So I am going along fine with God as kind of my eye in the sky type of thing when, what I call the first blood moon phase, God goes BLAM! "Read the Bible!" So I start reading the Bible and I say, "Wow. This is the voice of that guy who has been with me all these years." When I looked ahead to the New Testament that was not the word of God. So over the summer I have been reading the Bible as much as I can. Now I return to the message board. I do not really know why. I just try to do as I am told. One item of note is that during the second blood moon phase God came back, but I have already stated that elsewhere. Does not seem to attract much attention but that does not really surprise me. Which brings me back to the topic at hand, if you say there are flaws in the Old Testament or if you say there is no God then I am here to debate. If you have an issue with the dozens of other gods and bibles then I will let their people cover those.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


I am going through some more of these supposed inconsistencies. Some of the verses cited I see are from statements of people who speak falsely. In the book of Job Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar all come to comfort Job but sometimes speak falsely. One can not quote one of them and then say the Bible is contradicting itself.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 18, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote _Antiquities_ in 93 C.E., _after_ the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 18, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


One might come to the understanding that the book of Job is the only book I have ever read. I am beginning to think it is the only one I need to read. 

I have heard several claims of there being works of literature which rival the Bible's word. So here I throw down the gauntlet. Match it! 

*From the book of Job:* (4th century BC by the way)
*38* Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?

9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

10 And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,

11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; and caused the dayspring to know his place;

13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

14 It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.

15 And from the wicked their light is withholden, and the high arm shall be broken.

16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou walked in the search of the depth?

17 Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?

18 Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all.

19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof,

20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

21 Knowest thou it, because thou wast then born? or because the number of thy days is great?

22 Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,

23 Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?

24 By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?

25 Who hath divided a watercourse for the overflowing of waters, or a way for the lightning of thunder;

26 To cause it to rain on the earth, where no man is; on the wilderness, wherein there is no man;

27 To satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth?

28 Hath the rain a father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew?

29 Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?

30 The waters are hid as with a stone, and the face of the deep is frozen.

31 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?

32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

34 Canst thou lift up thy voice to the clouds, that abundance of waters may cover thee?

35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go and say unto thee, Here we are?

36 Who hath put wisdom in the inward parts? or who hath given understanding to the heart?

37 Who can number the clouds in wisdom? or who can stay the bottles of heaven,

38 When the dust groweth into hardness, and the clods cleave fast together?

39 Wilt thou hunt the prey for the lion? or fill the appetite of the young lions,

40 When they couch in their dens, and abide in the covert to lie in wait?

41 Who provideth for the raven his food? when his young ones cry unto God, they wander for lack of meat.

Job 38 KJV - Then the LORD answered Job out of the - Bible Gateway


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lots of significant issues, like how many horses there were in Solomon's stable.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Did you write the list?


no, she just carelessly pasted it......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

GreenBean said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


did you know there were significant differences between copies of the Gilgamesh story dating from before the Jewish captivity and those dated afterwards?......



> The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BCE.


actually, there is no such requirement....and if you're going to insist on Biblical literalism, tell me how many people had to drown if Noah lived only 23 'generations' after Adam.....



> The flood , if it occurred , was most likely not a global phenomena - the asians and sub-sahara africans  were not effected.


why would we need a global flood to drown 10,000 to 20,000 people?....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Or like how is it that you're unable to compose a relevant comment.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


There was no flood as described in the bibles. 

Why is such an important element of the god's cruelty (one of many that calls into question "his" role as a serial mass murderer), a historical hoax?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I'm sorry, sweetie.....you wouldn't know relevant if it bit you in the ass......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > GreenBean said:
> ...


were you there?.....did you sleep through it?....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your pointless drivel had nothing to do with the discussion. Because you're not able to respond with relevant commentary, you should stay out of the thread.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 18, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



then it was relevant, since the discussion was about nothing........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Is it possible for you to read the thread discussion and offer a relevant comment?

It's just pitiable that you YEC'ists will insist your bible tales and fables are true and inerrant Yet we both know that there is not a shred of credible evidence to support such absurdities.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 18, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Because you're clueless, you get a pass for such nonsensical comments.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/shrugs...the only possible comment relevant to your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about and have to lie about others to have something to post......even then, its merely repetitive......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


/shrugs... I've tried repeatedly to give you an opportunity to offer some rational means whereby we can assess your claims to the validity of biblical absurdities such as the Ark cruise to nowhere. It's unfortunate, but consistently, you get pissy when you're called out for being both clueless regarding the absurdity of Ark Tales and of basic principles of earth science.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Hollie, do you actually care whether or not God exists?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Yes, I do. I care because religious folks are not always the benevolent, "do unto others" personality types you might portray. Far too often, religious folks are the angry, self-righteous, self-hating types who _do_ believe their bibles relate an accurate worldview, and that opinion crosses into social constructs, and those social constructs impact individuals freedoms. It leverages political decisions. It lends weight to laws that are developed and implemented.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Besides the first sentence how does that relate to whether or not there is a God?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Your question is presumptive. There are many conceptions of gods. Don't you find an arrogance in the presumption of "a" single, partisan God?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


How about this instead; any particular reason you are dodging the question?


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So was it a global flood or not? And how do we know that Noah was 600 years old?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


First question is; do you believe in God?


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no real proof for or against the possibility of a god existing. Meaning, if someone ever brings me real proof that a god exists, I'd have no problem believing then that a god exists.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I'm dodging nothing. You appear to arrogantly assume that your gods are the only possible gods. Why do you assume that all other religions are wrong in their conceptions of gods and yours are the only possible gods?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Fine, let us start with Noah's flood as told in the Old Testament King James Version. OK?


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Go for it.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Correct me if I am wrong but I asked if you cared whether or not God exists. You answered by explaining other peoples behaviour, thereby dodging the first question. I asked you how that related to the previous question. Then you give some random statement about multiple gods, thereby dodging the first and second questions. Then I asked you why you are dodging the question. You state some more information about multiple gods, thereby dodging the first, second, and third questions. Are you going to dodge this question also?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Excellent. First let us acknowledge that we can not examine the flood itself so what we must focus on is the account of the flood. Agreed?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I'm correcting you for being wrong. Why are you choosing to sidestep questions put to you?


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Actually, if there was a global flood, there would be archeological evidence pinpointing the time... But focus on the account of the flood if you wish.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Good tactic. Use the biblical accounts of the flood to prove the biblical accounts of the flood.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Would you like to join in or are you here only to be a pain in the ass?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


And I consider that the forth dodge in a row. Before moving on to the flood how about you answer the first question I asked you this morning?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Ok. I'll play along. Can we agree that sources other than the bibles can be used to critique biblical claims?

Super!

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition


And if you want flood tales, everyone has 'em.

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I did. The answers conflicts with your preconceptions.

Why do you continue to sidestep the questions put to you?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I wish. Focusing on the account itself should make the process of proving God much quicker. The account can be isolated to the book of Genesis, chapters 6 through 8. 22 + 24 + 22 = 68 verses.

Why does the LORD tell Noah to use gopher wood? There is no such material as far as one anyone knows.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


First question please.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Yes. Stop sidestepping the first question you were directed to respond to.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Ah. Why couldn't you just be honest and acknowledge your only goal is to proselytize?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


That's hardly an answer.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


"Hollie, do you actually care whether or not God exists?" is an attempt to proselytize? How so?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Now you are just slipping into stupid.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



"I wish. Focusing on the account itself should make the process of proving God much quicker. The account can be isolated to the book of Genesis, chapters 6 through 8. 22 + 24 + 22 = 68 verses."

It's just remarkable that you're just not willing to be honest about your intentions.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




That is exactly what the Bible says Hollie. That man will not believe in him because they think that they are too smart to believe and that belief in God is nothing but nonsense.
It has also been proven that the Bible has not been rewritten from the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is still the very same words written 2,000 years ago as it is today.

You also have it wrong that believers in God are not concerned with Earths environment. God commands us that we must be good stewards and to take care of the Earth. We will still be living on this planet after Jesus returns.

Hollie- Think about the protesters around the world. Who are the ones who clean up after themselves. Lefties or Righties? Who are the ones who are destroying things?
You are believing the lies about believers, they are not haters.

Just last month we had millions show up in New York City to protest over climate change.
They left tons of trash behind and many of them flew in on their private jets.
The Wall Street Protesters left tons of trash and blocked small businesses from their customers.
The Tea Party protesters have always cleaned up after themselves where ever they have protested.

It is not mankind's impact on the environment. It is God who is - because the majority on Earth do not believe in him and refuse to turn to him and accept him and follow his ways.

We are all now, going through the Trumpet Judgments. Believers as well as non believers. All of us right now are experiencing the Trumpet Judgments.
It is up to each and every single one of us who are living right now to see and understand them. These Trumpets judgments are what God is showing us as his proof in him. The words in the Bible are showing us, we who have ears and eyes see it. Those that don't - refuse to see and hear and would rather believe the lies that it is the burning of fossil fuels done by mankind.
Believers will not have to go through the Bowl Judgments. Those who still refuse to see and believe will have to go through the Bowl Judgments and many will still refuse to believe and then they will be forced to see and believe that there is a God the creator  but they curse him for it. They have their absolute proof yet they curse him rather than turn to him.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Because I identified that your only intention is to proselytize?

That's just identifying a core dishonesty on your part.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Was there a prior agreement that this thread be used to proselytize?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Taz -> RV -> Taz -> RV -> Taz -> RV -> Hollie, "Ah. Why couldn't you just be honest and acknowledge your own goal is to proselytize?" ?
First question please.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Yes. Answer the first question you sidestepped.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Ew goodie, Hollie just looked up a new random word.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You are a moron, Hollie.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We have the freedom to do so.
I am telling you facts - believe it or don't.
The Trumpet Judgments are bad enough let alone the Bowl Judgments. They are not going to be very nice to go through , but it is your freedom to do so if you want to.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


 I can see you're angry and frustrated but behaving like a petulant 12 year old is not helping.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Lashing out is certainly easier than trying to defend your arguments, isn't it?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Of course you have the freedom to do so. I just would have hoped for a bit of honesty and personal integrity to identify that you aren't interested in defending an argument, you're just looking to proselytize.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

There is archeological evidence that there was a worldwide flood.

Evidence for Rapid Washout Catastrophic Flood Washouts
Geologists have been forced to admit to catastrophic formation of some of the great landscape scars that occur on every continent. In many cases, geologists have even had their definitions and concept of land formation proven questionable.

Soft Rock Catastrophic Flood Model
another feature often seen in rockstratais extensive folding. The flood model can explain this as contortion induced in soft material during an earthquake or upheaval of a portion of the earth. If each of the layers was hard to begin with it would be impossible for folding such as this to take place.
These examples are anomalies that weaken the evolutionary theory. The Flood model looks more plausible when we study the evidence objectively.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> There is archeological evidence that there was a worldwide flood.
> 
> Evidence for Rapid Washout Catastrophic Flood Washouts
> Geologists have been forced to admit to catastrophic formation of some of the great landscape scars that occur on every continent. In many cases, geologists have even had their definitions and concept of land formation proven questionable.
> ...



From the "about" section at your link:

"We are committed to sharing the truth about God and His promises. Amazing Discoveries™ began as a way for us to further spread this truth."

So yeah, at the bias is announced.

Can you link to peer reviewed papers published by AD?

No? So once again, this is just a thread for thumping, right?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You are very correct, Hollie. Referring to you as a moron was rash of me. I sometime do not seek the LORD's guidance as I should. If I had I would not have called you a moron. The LORD would have never allowed me to call you a moron. He is wise and my choice of words, such as 'moron', was much less than what the LORD expects of me. From now on I promise not to call you a moron. You are definitely not a moron.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I am being honest you are the one who is refusing the facts.
I also am not trying to proselytize you.
Proselytizing means to to induce someone to convert to one's faith. I am a Baptist and I am not trying to get you to join the Baptist Church or any other denomination.
Showing proof that there is a God is not proselytizing.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Loading a thread with something about trumpet and bowl judgements has what to do with Ark tales?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


As Hollie grinds to a fail and Taz is never seen from again...


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


I'm still waiting to see the peer reviewed data you're about to post... anytime now, that will give us a comprehensive description of the Ark tale, how this event took place only 4,000 +/- years ago and how we resolve that with biological, chemical, archeological timelines that define a planet somewhere around 3.8 billion years old. 

I can't respond to what you're refusing to post as credible evidence of Arks, dinosaurs thereon (yeah, dinosaurs frolicking with humans), and why the gods would allow for incestuous relations as Noah and his immediate family were left to repopulate the planet, all in just a few thousand years.

Witness for me, brotha'


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


So when do you prove the existence of god? Just keep going...


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > There is archaeological evidence that there was a worldwide flood.
> ...



New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood of Noah s Time Happened Archaeologist Says - ABC News
https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical...r-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf
Just Whose Science Is Todd Wood Stopping Uncommon Descent


*Archaeological Science *
There is a worldwide tradition among natives of a global flood.
According to current archaeological evidence, civilization appears to have originated in the Ararat/Babylon region.
The genealogical records of many of the European kings can be traced back to Japheth, son of Noah.
An analysis of population growth statistics confirms that there was zero population at the estimated time of the end of the flood. This indicates the global demise of humans by Noah's flood.
Human palaeontological evidence exists even in the earliest geologic 'ages' ( human footprints in Cambrian, Carboniferous, and Cretaceous rocks). If the layers of rock were laid down by a global flood and then interpreted as evolutionary long-ages, human remains and artifact's would appear to be in such positions.
The most ancient human artefacts date to the post-flood era. This indicates that the earlier hardware could have been buried beyond reach by a huge flood.
Calculations have shown that there is nearly the same amount of organic material present today, worldwide, as there would have been if all the fossils were still alive. This indicates the demise of all living things in a single global event.
Palaeontological evidence indicates that the early earth had a warm/humid climate. This is consistent with the destruction of the old atmosphere by the processes of a global flood as described in Genesis.
The glacial period started very quickly. This would require a cataclysmic event such as a global flood to trigger such a rapid climatic change.
Similar geologic formations exist in rocks of all ages ( rifts, folds, faults, thrusts, etc.). These can just as easily be explained as being created in the same cataclysmic global event.
Studies show that much of the world's folded beds of sediment have no compression fractures, indicating that they were contorted while they were still wet and soft. For this to occur on a global scale, and on sediment thousands of metres thick, it would have required a catastrophic global flood.
Rocks of different geologic 'ages' have similar physical features indicating that they could have been created by a single worldwide event - such as a global flood.
There is an absence of physical evidence that indicates a time change between rocks of 'successive ages'. Sedimentary rock layers worldwide appear to have been laid down very quickly, as by a global flood.
Globally, there is an almost complete absence of any evidence of animal and plant root activity within the tiny layers of sediment. Slowly deposited layers should show this activity, flood deposits wouldn't.
All types of rocks (limestone, shale, granite, etc) occur in all geologic 'ages'. This indicates a common formation on a global scale - the situation that would have been created by the mixing of sediment in a global flood.
Many geological processes have a recent geological date. If the long-age evolutionary time scale is ignored, these processes would have occurred in the very recent past -  as a result of the flood cataclysm.
Recent volcanic rocks are distributed widely. (see last point above)
There is a lack of correlation between radiometric 'ages' and assumed palaeontological 'ages' . A global flood could easily create an illusion of geologic 'ages'. The consequent conflict between dating methods confirms the illusion.
Fossil 'graveyards' are found worldwide, and in rocks of all 'ages'. Only a catastrophic global flood could achieve this.
The burial of fossil deposits worldwide had to have occurred in a catastrophic event. Only massive flooding could bury in such a fashion.
Marine fossils can be found on the crests of mountains. Apart from mountain uplifting, this can also be explained as the marine animals being washed there and then buried. A global flood could do this.
There is a worldwide distribution of most of the fossil types, indicating transportation on a global scale by a global flood.
Fossils from different 'ages' are often found mixed. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.
Worldwide, fossils from different 'ages' are often found in the wrong order. This indicates a global mixing of fossils as a consequence of a global flood.
Supposed evolutionary fossil sequences often parallel the ecological zonation that occurs today . If a global flood mixed organisms from different areas, it would create the illusion of a fossil sequence over time.
Dinosaurs and many other prehistoric creatures died out suddenly (Fact). A catastrophe such as a global flood could have produced this result. The theory of a meteorite as well as a flood are both scientific theories and one or the other should not be ignored.
Polystrate fossils ( vertical fossil tree trunks) that are found worldwide indicate turbulent or rapid deposition. A global flood would be required to do this worldwide.
Polystrate fossils also form when water-logged timber sinks in a large body of water. A year long global flood could produce worldwide polystrate fossils formed in this way.
Animal tracks and other ephemeral markings (ripple-marks and raindrop imprints) have been preserved throughout the geological column. Rapid covering of these markings is required for this preservation worldwide - by a global flood.
Meteorites are basically absent from the geologic column. With the large number of meteorites hitting the earth each year, they should be very plentiful throughout the sedimentary rocks - unless much of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down in one year.
Sedimentary rocks contain fossil ripple-marks and raindrop imprints, but no hail imprints. A global flood (with associated rain), that was not caused by storms would not leave hail imprint marks.
Some desert areas show evidence of 'recent' water bodies. Water from a recent global flood would remain in large pools (bodies of water) for some time before evaporating.
There is evidence of a recent drastic rise in sea level. A global flood could easily have created this feature.
Raised shorelines are found worldwide indicating a time when the world had a different sea level. A consistent interpretation of this is that a global flood altered the levels of the oceans and seas.
Mountain-high water level marks found throughout the world are consistent with the recession of a global flood.
River terraces are found worldwide.
There is a universal occurrence of rivers in valleys too large for the present stream. Slow erosion over millions of years could not have created these valleys as the mountains would have eroded, keeping pace with the valley erosion. The drainage of global floodwaters from the land surface could easily create such wide valleys in a short period of time.
Only modern sediments show any evidence of surface drainage systems. If the majority of the world's sedimentary rocks were laid down by a global flood there would not be any sign of drainage erosion except for the top layers eroded during the recession of the flood waters off the land.
Hydrologic evidence points to the rapid deposition of sedimentary rock layers. Therefore, the thousand's of metres of sediment must have been deposited by a catastrophic global flood.
Hydrologic evidence points to the world's sedimentary rocks being deposited in one continuous episode. All the layers could have been laid down by a single event, such as a global flood.
Hydrologic experiments show that flowing sediment automatically settles out in distinct layers. Therefore, sedimentary rock layers can be just as easily explained as flood debris, as slow deposition.
There is a worldwide occurrence of deep alluvial deposits and sedimentary rocks consistent with a huge global flood.
There is a near-random deposition of formational sequences.
Nowhere in the world is it possible to see the complete geologic column as a single structure. It is always found in bits and pieces, and mostly with pieces missing. Globally, a worldwide flood could create the illusion of a geologic column.
The oldest organisms still alive on Earth today, the Californian Redwoods, Sequoias and Bristlecone Pines, are around 3,000-4,000 years old. Nothing is older that the date of Noah's flood.

There is plenty of Archaeological evidence for the flood. As for a young earth I am still not convenced of a young earth science. So don't try to paint me as a young Earth believer like you tried to do in a earlier discussion that we had. I believe that the Earth is billions of years old.
I put the links that have carbon dating changes and challenges even though they are  scientist's of a young earth. Their science discoveries should not be ignored like the mainstream who are also biased. The mainstream do not want to believe that there is a Creator and when evidence does prove it, it's buried in the college and science buildings basements and or put in the shelves and drawers to be ignored.
There is plenty of scientific evidence on both sides of a Global Flooding.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


 
You are the one who is ignoring the start of the discussion of what I said, with what you said.
It was an answer to your misguided perceptions of believers and trying to paint Christians as bad.
It was you who deflected the discussion of the Ark.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie, I have to admit you are doing pretty well for someone with no knowledge of God but you are boring me. Quit boring people people Hollie! As I have said, knowing God is more than just like some random knowledge like the first twelve digits of pi. Jesus promises salvation but God promises a bountiful harvest. Could be why rulers like Jesus a lot more than God. A note of caution however. Right now we are merely playing with snakes and sticks. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither harken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. All of the LORD's prophets have been killed. Elijah is on the way.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



No mention of Arks, dinosaurs on boat rides, etc.

No even the timelines that would support Noah's pleasure cruise. 

An ice age (which there is hard data for), that gripped the planet 15,000 to 12,000 years would account for Ark tales, tales and fables passed down from generation to generation and becoming embellished with each re-telling.



Bob Ballard explorer who found the Titanic now says he may have found evidence of Noah s flood - NY Daily News

Here’s how he explains it. Around 12,000 years ago, much of the world was covered with glaciers. When they began to melt, excess water rushed into the earth’s oceans and caused disastrous floods.

So in 5,000 B.C., the Black Sea was just a freshwater lake. As the Mediterranean Sea rose, seawater flooded into the Black Sea with a force 200 times that of Niagara Falls, the Guardian reports.

“It probably was a bad day,” Ballard told ABC News. “At some magic moment, it broke through and flooded this place violently, and a lot of real estate, 150,000 square kilometers of land (or 58,000 square miles, about the size of Illinois), went under.”


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie, I have to admit you are doing pretty well for someone with no knowledge of God but you are boring me. Quit boring people people Hollie! As I have said, knowing God is more than just like some random knowledge like the first twelve digits of pi. Jesus promises salvation but God promises a bountiful harvest. Could be why rulers like Jesus a lot more than God. A note of caution however. Right now we are merely playing with snakes and sticks. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither harken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. All of the LORD's prophets have been killed. Elijah is on the way.



This is not the thread for proselytizing.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Excellent post Peach. I saw a movie on all of this as well as on the formation of the Grand Canyon.  What really got to me though was those trees buried upright without having any roots.  The is far more coal throughout the world right now even though we have been mining it for years than could be produced were all the trees currently present in todays world to be buried. For anyone who claims to believe in science to deny that something very major happened is laughable.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



I'm still seeing nothing that supports the biblical tale of Noah and the Ark.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I have to admit you are doing pretty well for someone with no knowledge of God but you are boring me. Quit boring people people Hollie! As I have said, knowing God is more than just like some random knowledge like the first twelve digits of pi. Jesus promises salvation but God promises a bountiful harvest. Could be why rulers like Jesus a lot more than God. A note of caution however. Right now we are merely playing with snakes and sticks. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither harken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. All of the LORD's prophets have been killed. Elijah is on the way.
> ...


Still looking up random words to answer the first question? You remember? The first question?, the one you are still dodging.

Come on, Hollow. Make up something. Anything. Just don't keep acting like you don't hear me. Makes you look stupid. We don't want you to make yourself look stupid, do we?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


And of course, you know with certainty that: 
"The is far more coal throughout the world right now even though we have been mining it for years than could be produced were all the trees currently present in todays world to be buried"

Well, because you just know those things.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Ah, a name caller. That adds credibility to your posts.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


You keep digging that hole you'll be able to tell us exactly how much coal there is down there.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Please, please, please, do not play the victim here. At least walk away with dignity.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Pointless.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You're getting desperate. 

Where is the evidence for the Ark tales? Your childish name- calling diminishes you, not me.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You call that throwing the ball back in my court? Or just trying to buy yourself some time.

You should read Song of Solomon. Great stuff.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


You tried to jump on this track to get out of answering the first question once already. I think let you chase your own tail for a while. You are boring me.


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

So Randy, where's all my proof of god you were supposed to give me?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


So, are we to assume that you've abandoned any attempt to provide credible evidence for Ark tales?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Yes Hollie. I actually research a lot of different things. I may be getting on in age but I have never stopped learning.  Unlike many people who upon obtaining a college education with a major in ONE subject and immediately conclude that they alone know it all, I continue to search.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


it was wide spread enough to kill all the human beings not on the ark........did it touch the top of Mt Everest?......no.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Problems with denying the occurance of a flood....



Hollie said:


> And if you want flood tales, everyone has 'em.
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


she started out knee deep........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You YEC'ists are a hoot.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


And you're just angry because you can't string words into coherent sentences.

So tell us about dinosaurs on Noah's pleasure cruise.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you no longer are......you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Problems with denying the occurance of a flood....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The only problem is you YEC'ists being unable to document a global flood just 4,000 years ago.

You can't.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


come up with some new material or I just repeat "you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination".......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Problems with denying the occurance of a flood....
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're angry. I understand challenges to your Ark tales causes you such angst but why get pissy with me when I'm just trying to educate you to the folly of YEC'ism?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Repeat whatever you want. It won't hide your inability to address a single, salient made in contention to your Ark tales.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


 Well, you're the just repeating tiresome slogans. Most 12 year olds could make better arguments than repeating tired slogans


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 19, 2014)

Never assume.  We'll just have to look and see if any books other than the Bible corroborate what the Bible tells us.....


----------



## Taz (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So where did the chinks, spooks, pigmies, bush people... Come from if they weren't on the ark?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Never assume.  We'll just have to look and see if any books other than the Bible corroborate what the Bible tells us.....


Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Yes it did.
The Mathisen Corollary Crinoids on Mount Everest 

Crinoids on Mount Everest?
Crinoid fossils and other marine fossils have been found on top of almost every mountain range on earth. In fact, crinoid fossils have even been found at the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



It is explained in Genesis

According to Genesis 10, Noah had three sons:
Shem, forefather of the middle peoples (Semitic Arabian) and  as the father of the Far East
Ham, forefather of the southern peoples (Hamitic North/North East African)
Japheth, forefather of the northern peoples (Japhetic Eurasian)


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 19, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium  effect, a perfect growing atmosphere.  It had never rained before the flood.  And the rest came from underground.




How do you know there were a  layer of water in the atmosphere before hand.

Also, would not such a layer create a large temperature difference on the ground than what we see today?   Something about that model sounds highly suspicious.  I think you have to come up with something better than that.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > There was a layer of water in the heavens. It filtered the suns rays, and created a terrarium  effect, a perfect growing atmosphere.  It had never rained before the flood.  And the rest came from underground.
> ...



The Earth was much warmer during the dinosaur age
EcoAlert Earth was Stifling Hot During Peak Age of Dinosaurs


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 19, 2014)

Where are all your people?  If you have humans producing as early as you say, with no flood, there should be trillions of people on earth.  If on the other hand  *re*population began 4,400 years ago, there should be between 6-8 Billion people.


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 19, 2014)

peach174 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




Actually, if you think abut it, it is highly unlikely that any sea/ocean/lake creatures would have gotten deposited in large numbers on any mountain if we relie only on the explaination of a flood.

The Biblical did nt put them there.  There would have to have traveled not only upwards, but also thousand of miles to make it near the top of a mountain in waters that did not harbor the natural food supply of these organisms.  Especially in 40 days!

Its like saying it is ok to traversing  the Sahara without proper preparations, or knowing where the oasis are.  Such a route would take years to create underwater even if Mt.  Everst existed at the time these organisms where able to travel in the region.

In other words, unless these organisms fell from Heaven with the rain, it is unlikely the flood "deposited" them on the mountains in the short time span given.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Never assume.  We'll just have to look and see if any books other than the Bible corroborate what the Bible tells us.....
> ...


You must be down right giddy then.   Who was it again that stuck her foot in her mouth about what was contained in the Qu'ran, lovingly referred to since as Hollie's Folly?

As for temperature, take a glass of hot water and put it in a tub of cold water.   Does the glass of water heat the tub water, or does the tub of cold water over take the heat?  Prior to the flood we had a layer of water that filtered the sun's rays and created a terrarium effect for vegetation.  It is the perfect environment for life.  
We have marine fossils on top of mountains.  We have fresh water shells that predate the salt water shells of the Black Sea. And across the globe inhabitants knew there was a flood.  We have 22 different accounts of it from a variety of different locations.


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 19, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Where are all your people?  If you have humans producing as early as you say, with no flood, there should be trillions of people on earth.  If on the other hand if *re*population began 4,400 years ago, there should be between 6-8 Billion people.



Actually, no.  There is an upper limit to the population question you are implying.  Yes, at first (or starting from an adequate population) Population growth is exponential.  But given a limit on any availible resources such as food, space and other(there is alot) the population growth will slow down and eventually stop at a limiting pint.  Improvements can increase this, suggesting that the population of the human race may have leveled off at numerous points in time and started growing again due to improvement in Technology.

But if yu consider the amount of foodstuff produced by the human race and tried to feed 6 billion from that measure, with the limited Technology of those days(or just the Hebrew Tech, which was actually inferior to their neighbors) and you would have mass starvation on an epic and global level.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 19, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



If you would have read the article it explains it.
On the other hand, the hydroplate theory explains the presence of these marine fossils on top of Everest and other high continental mountains quite satisfactorily (just as it explains many other difficult issues in geology that cannot be satisfactorily explained by conventional tectonic theory, such as the question of why ancient monuments such as the Giza pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Mnajdra and others are still aligned after several thousands of years of supposed continental drift, or how undersea canyons such as the Ganges Fan, the Indus Fan, and the Monterey Canyon were carved, or why the Grand Canyon plows right through a huge massif if it was really carved over tens of millions of years by a simple river the way we are supposed to believe it was, or why there are arc-and-cusp patternsin the deep ocean trenches that are impossible to explain by the action of subducting plates, or why -- if subducting plates really cause deep ocean trenches -- sophisticated modern gravity measurementsfind gravity vacuums under the trenches instead of gravity spikes the way one would expect if these trenches are really created by a diving oceanic plate).

The hydroplate theory explains why Everest itself is composed of sedimentary rock -- in itself a remarkable fact. It explains that the layered strata (with their rapidly buried fossils) were laid down during the global flood, that the events surrounding that flood caused the continents to drift away from the rupture that would become the Atlantic Ocean and towards the basin that would become the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and that the violent compression of these continents (and their sedimentary layers) pushed up the mountain ranges including the Himalayas. The theory argues that this flood event could have happened only thousands of years ago rather than tens or hundreds of millions of years ago -- solving the problems that uniformitarian explanations have (such as why the successive ages of annual freezing and thawing have not eroded all these ancient fossils away, and why there are still modern crinoids that look just like these supposedly extremely ancient crinoids).

This theory explains the preservation of fossils in the first place -- which do not generally form under normal conditions and which pose a real problem for uniformitarian theories (normal conditions plus lots of time do not create fossils). Its explanation for a rapid creation of the Himalayas is also crucial to the understanding of what caused earth's "Big Roll" (the evidence for which has been discussed in several other posts such as this one and this one, and which other analysts have tried to explain using theories such as the "earth-crust displacement" theory or theories which involve Venus bouncing off of the earth in an ancient time).


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 19, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Where are all your people?  If you have humans producing as early as you say, with no flood, there should be trillions of people on earth.  If on the other hand if *re*population began 4,400 years ago, there should be between 6-8 Billion people.
> ...



That's not correct amr.  This earth can sustain about 10 billion people at one time.  At that point resources would start to cause a decline.
If the flood happened when the Bible said it did, we should have about 6 and 1/2 billion people today.  I do believe we have reached around 7 billion.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Well, aside from your being giddy and the your childish name-calling, it was you with the stuck foot and not understanding the corrupted bibles being corrected by the Koran.

As for marine animal sea shells at higher elevations, that's answered by processes of geology, tectonic plate movement and "uplift".

There's no magic or supernaturalism of the bibles involved.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie, I was thinking about how you faired today. Seems you were defeated, publicly humiliated, and utterly crushed by someone you do not even believe in. What is that like? Let me know so I can pass it along.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie, I was thinking about how you faired today. Seems you were defeated, publicly humiliated, and utterly crushed by someone you do not even believe in. What is that like? Let me know so I can pass it along.


Aside from your anger and bitterness, are you delusional? It seems you religious extremists have real difficulty with a reality based worldview.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Spamming the thread with the same childish nonsense. 

You fundie zealots are a pathetic lot.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


??....you know the answer to that.....as people spread across the earth, living in different environments, they adapted.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Let me guess. You got that from Answers in Genesis.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Even for a simpleton such as yourself, that was pointless and absurd.

Your silly bible tales would not account for the repopulation of the planet in a mere few thousand years.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......incapable of debating without pretending everyone is a young earther......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You poor, angry YEC'ist. Because you're incapable of doing anything but spamming with your tired slogans, just leave now and avoid making a bigger fool of yourself.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You actually don't have a clue. 

Here's the answer and makes your bibles tales and fables even less credible

The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month May 2004


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 19, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I was thinking about how you faired today. Seems you were defeated, publicly humiliated, and utterly crushed by someone you do not even believe in. What is that like? Let me know so I can pass it along.
> ...


A worldview without God is delusional. He says hi, and sorry about the cat.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 19, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You need to sober up.


----------



## Taz (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Now THAT'S called evolution. Which is a huge no-no in the bible, so that can't be an explanation. Randy said he was going to prove to me that the story was correct and that god exists... but then he vanished.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


we had this conversation once already.....I asked you if you figured that out all by yourself.......you didn't answer........of course it's called evolution, because it IS evolution.......not like the silly crap some idiots call evolution, like the myth that multi celled organisms evolved from single celled organisms......now that we've covered that, perhaps you can stop posting dumb questions like where did white people come from and contribute something valuable to the discussion....


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Taz disappeared after I asked him a question also. Taz starts asking really dumb questions and then hopes someone will come along and bail him out.


----------



## Taz (Oct 20, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I answered all your questions, go back and read them. You were supposed to prove god to me and also explain how blacks... got here if they weren't on the boat. 
PMP, you can't have it both ways on evolution, the bible doesn't agree with you anyways, neither do most Christian scholars. Anyways, if the flood happened like, 6000 years ago (?) or so, that's not enough time for evolution to make pigmies, Chinks, Eskimos... Even YOU know that.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 20, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


One, that was another poster. Both you and your hope for a rescuer, Hollie, have me mixed up with someone else. Two, the racial slurs are really disgusting. You are probably a minority yourself and are just waiting for someone to call you on it so you can say, "Wait. See what you know?" but it is a racial slur and disgusting no matter who you are.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Unlike what you post: cut and paste spam.

Sorry, but your YEC'ist, literal view of Ark tales doesn't account for the diversity of humans on the planet.

Of course, someone with a credible argument could offer some peer reviewed data that identifies how incestuous relations between members of Noah's immediate family could account for humanity, both in numbers and in ethnicity. But as we know, fundamentalist zealots such as yourself can't begin to support their Ark tales.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie,


> you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination......



Taz, you don't listen.  What race was Ham's wife?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Cut and paste spam. Typical.


The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie,
> 
> 
> > you're just a tiresome troll with no imagination......
> ...


So, let me guess. You're just another angry fundamentalist who can't support their argument.

It is you who doesn't listen. Ark tales are not a true rendering of historical events.

Did you know that some of the Egyptian pyramids were constructed in the general timeline of the Ark tale. How many Egyptians can dance on the tip of a pyramid?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Last night on tracing your roots this black woman wanted to know what part of Africa she came from so they did a dna test and determined the country where her ancestors came from.  Pretty amazing stuff.

If they can do that, I would think they could prove that we didn't all come from Noah and his incestuous family.  Or that the story is not true based on dna.  Have they been able to do this yet?

Just as I thought.  Not true.

We do not see the five thousand years that our DNA would reveal if all humans descended from the sole survivors of God’s flood.

An Introduction to Biblical Nonsense


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not a true rendering?  Hmmm, let me check and see what truth the Qur'an has to say about the subject...


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Are you daring to suggest God lied!


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 20, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No silly.  I'm suggesting that there is no god and that MAN made that Noah story up.  Why not?  What about all the other god(s) men made up before the Jesus god?  Those were completely made up so what makes you think yours is any different?

Why there is no god


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 20, 2014)

Am I "DARING"?  LOL.  Yes I am.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Taz said:


> PMP, you can't have it both ways on evolution, the bible doesn't agree with you anyways, neither do most Christian scholars. Anyways, if the flood happened like, 6000 years ago (?) or so, that's not enough time for evolution to make pigmies, Chinks, Eskimos... Even YOU know that.


fuck 6000 years.....that's Hollie's fantasy, not mine.....I don't have it "both ways" on evolution....I have it the only way it is.......you're the one who wants to pretend there's a second avenue to evolution that tells us humans and stinging nettle have a common ancestor.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Sorry, but your YEC'ist, literal view of Ark tales


posts like this is why I believe atheists are idiots.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


it can be scientifically proven that more angels can dance on the head of an atheist than on the head of a pin.......because atheists have flat heads......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Am I "DARING"?  LOL.  Yes I am.


I thought you were the guy who changes his belief system every time he gets drunk......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Typical pointless babble. You can't explain why Egyptian civilization was thriving at the time of the Ark tales, so you stutter and mumble.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 20, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


civilization in Egypt started long, long after the flood you silly young earther......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 20, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but your YEC'ist, literal view of Ark tales
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You YEC'ists have real problems with a reality based worldview.

Aside from the Egyptians, why do the Maya have record of your silly biblical flood.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

*Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?* 

Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 20, 2014)

For your enjoyment:  The Scientific Case Against Evolution


----------



## jillian (Oct 20, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...



that's nice. you know these stories are allegory and not to be taken literally, right?


----------



## jillian (Oct 20, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> For your enjoyment:  The Scientific Case Against Evolution



there is no scientific case against evolution. there are only radical religious right arguments that have zero to do with science


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 20, 2014)

Actually there is a big case against evolution.  DNA.  It isn't the fact that it exists.  It  isn't even the fact that it passes along information needed for a cell to function properly.

Google a video of the making of *a* cell, and what it entails.  It isn't just the complexity of the strands of the amino acids.  It is the* specified* complexity.   Those, complex in their own right, strands have to line up *specifically,* in a coded order on that single cell's DNA before that cell can function correctly.   They are pre-wired to know where they belong on the DNA strand, and how to attach properly.

How do you impart information to your computer?  You enter a code.  Not a random set of 0's and 1's.  It has to be specific to work properly.
Bill Gates likened DNA to a computer, with a code more complex than anything we've ever been able to come up with.

So look at what it takes to make the single cell come to life and tell me who entered the code that created those strands of amino acids and the code they followed  to make that cell function.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 20, 2014)

Some one produced  these codes.  Then, coded these codes so they would know what to do *before* life can occur.  There is a zero probability of a protein molecule happening by chance.  Watch one being formed and you will no longer believe in life by chance.


*Name**Abbreviation**Linear structure formula (atom composition and bonding)**SOURCE:* Institute for Chemistry Alanine ala CH3-CH(NH2)-COOH Arginine arg HN=C(NH2)-NH-(CH2)3-CH(NH2)-COOH Asparagine asn H2N-CO-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Aspartic acid asp HOOC-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Cysteine cys HS-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glutamine gln H2N-CO-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glutamic acid glu HOOC-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glycine gly NH2-CH2-COOH Histidine his NH-CH=N-CH=C-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH |____________| (nitrogen bonded to carbon) Isoleucine ile CH3-CH2-CH(CH3)-CH(NH2)-COOH Leucine leu (CH3)2-CH-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Lysine lys H2N-(CH2)4-CH(NH2)-COOH Methionine met CH3-S-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Phenylalanine phe Ph-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Proline pro NH-(CH2)3-CH-COOH |__________| Serine ser HO-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Threonine thr CH3-CH(OH)-CH(NH2)-COOH Tryptophan trp Ph-NH-CH=C-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH |_________| Tyrosine tyr HO-Ph-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Valine val (CH3)2-CH-CH(NH2)-COOH
[THEAD]
[/THEAD]
[TFOOT]
[/TFOOT]
[TBODY]
[/TBODY]


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually there is a big case against evolution.  DNA.  It isn't the fact that it exists.  It  isn't even the fact that it passes along information needed for a cell to function properly.
> 
> Google a video of the making of *a* cell, and what it entails.  It isn't just the complexity of the strands of the amino acids.  It is the* specified* complexity.   Those, complex in their own right, strands have to line up *specifically,* in a coded order on that single cell's DNA before that cell can function correctly.   They are pre-wired to know where they belong on the DNA strand, and how to attach properly.
> 
> ...


Ironic, DNA is the argument both for and against God. Sounds like God to me.


----------



## Judicial review (Oct 21, 2014)

I love pro christian leaning threads here.  It's truly a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> For your enjoyment:  The Scientific Case Against Evolution


Brought to you by fakes and Charlatans.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Some one produced  these codes.  Then, coded these codes so they would know what to do *before* life can occur.  There is a zero probability of a protein molecule happening by chance.  Watch one being formed and you will no longer believe in life by chance.
> 
> 
> *Name**Abbreviation**Linear structure formula (atom composition and bonding)**SOURCE:* Institute for Chemistry Alanine ala CH3-CH(NH2)-COOH Arginine arg HN=C(NH2)-NH-(CH2)3-CH(NH2)-COOH Asparagine asn H2N-CO-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Aspartic acid asp HOOC-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Cysteine cys HS-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glutamine gln H2N-CO-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glutamic acid glu HOOC-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Glycine gly NH2-CH2-COOH Histidine his NH-CH=N-CH=C-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH |____________| (nitrogen bonded to carbon) Isoleucine ile CH3-CH2-CH(CH3)-CH(NH2)-COOH Leucine leu (CH3)2-CH-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Lysine lys H2N-(CH2)4-CH(NH2)-COOH Methionine met CH3-S-(CH2)2-CH(NH2)-COOH Phenylalanine phe Ph-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Proline pro NH-(CH2)3-CH-COOH |__________| Serine ser HO-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Threonine thr CH3-CH(OH)-CH(NH2)-COOH Tryptophan trp Ph-NH-CH=C-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH |_________| Tyrosine tyr HO-Ph-CH2-CH(NH2)-COOH Valine val (CH3)2-CH-CH(NH2)-COOH
> ...


Did you happen to notice that there is nothing supernatural about the above?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

natrualgas said:


> I love pro christian leaning threads here.  It's truly a breath of fresh air.


More like smog.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Actually there is a big case against evolution.  DNA.  It isn't the fact that it exists.  It  isn't even the fact that it passes along information needed for a cell to function properly.
> ...


Sounds like you failed chemistry.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually there is a big case against evolution.  DNA.  It isn't the fact that it exists.  It  isn't even the fact that it passes along information needed for a cell to function properly.
> 
> Google a video of the making of *a* cell, and what it entails.  It isn't just the complexity of the strands of the amino acids.  It is the* specified* complexity.   Those, complex in their own right, strands have to line up *specifically,* in a coded order on that single cell's DNA before that cell can function correctly.   They are pre-wired to know where they belong on the DNA strand, and how to attach properly.
> 
> ...


"Specified complexity".  Oh gawd. Slogans and cliches' from a Disco 'tute groupie.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Why is that?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Because nothing about DNA suggests gawds.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What does that have to do with chemistry classes?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


If you would like I could help type your replies.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


DNA is a chemical structure. You didn't know that?

Did you ever take a chemistry class?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Not if the reply concerns a discussion involving chemistry.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Ok, any post you have other than chemistry just let me know.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Thanks. I need some help with the talking snake, thingy.


----------



## Judicial review (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> natrualgas said:
> 
> 
> > I love pro christian leaning threads here.  It's truly a breath of fresh air.
> ...



LA smog or Chicago smog?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Sure thing. How about, "wow, isn't it amazing how God can just graphic imagery and symbolism to create both an abstract construct and a solid representation of a world we can actually have little understanding of from our current point of view. I have been so small minded in not seeing the the obvious attempts of someone so much greater than myself trying to give me strength and wisdom. I am truly grateful and now know there is a God."
Or you could just go with, "Talking snakes? That's silly."


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollow, sorry if that last suggestion was not very good. If I had actually put the car in park while I typed and had my morning coffee it might have been better. God seems to be a just as active in the morning as any other time of the day so I can be thankful for that.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Your argument is not with me so much as it is with the more excitable Christians who don't accept your imagery and symbolism but require a literal rendering of genesis, taking snakes, floods Arks, etc.

I find it interesting and exciting that human nature pursues deeper than the superfluous non-answer of "the gods did it". We pursue knowledge. Allegorically speaking, it's both the blessing and curse of our nature-- which is why the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is a very apropos symbol of eternal sin.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Can a non-answer not be superfluous, you are not speaking allegorically, and apropos apparently does not mean what you think it means. This was a non-chemistry post. I thought we agreed you were going to seek help on those.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



actually, the Mayans did have a flood story, as did many South American natives.....
Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


The non-answer of "the gods did it" is both superfluous and tome wasting. What the god environment does is illustrate that only by pursuing experimentation, using tools available to expand perception (science), do we ever stand a chance at detecting/discerning the force behind our existence. What we learn is that supernatural hypotheses, (religious dogma in this case) removes us further and further from our goal, or any hope of achieving our goal of coming to terms with our existence. The term “supernatural” essentially defines out of science what is knowable and understandable. By adhering to the theistic paradigm, you can never know. You already "know" what you need to know, and that's contained in one of many “holy texts”.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Did you happen to notice that there is nothing supernatural about the above?


did you happen to notice there was nothing about random shit happening randomly?..........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



And the timelines don't coincide with biblical Ark tales. Were The Egyptians somehow excerpt from your flood tales?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Yes, a non-answer is always superfluous. You were being verbose when you should have been listening to God.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Did you happen to notice that there is nothing supernatural about the above?
> ...


You're at a loss for coherent comments.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



I have been listening. They told me not to listen to you.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Oh, the irony of it all.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Oops, I guess you really have been listening.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I know, right? 

"Random shit", talking snakes, Floods that never happened, it's as though some folks are trying to sell me something.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I don't believe in your timeline fantasy.......and the Egyptians also had a flood tale.....(see previous link).......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


your posts mirror your world and life view.....random shit, happening randomly.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


And you're still in denial about your flood tales having no connection with Egyptian history.

You YEC'ists have real problems with a reality based worldview.

Aside from the Egyptians, why do the Maya have no record of your silly biblical flood.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

*Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?*

Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


One can always expect less and less from you YEC'ists.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> you YEC'ists........ you YEC'ists....... you YEC'ists....... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists..



you realize, of course, that since I'm not a young earther, you haven't actually raised a defense to anything I have posted since approximately the first week in June........


----------



## Taz (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PMP, you can't have it both ways on evolution, the bible doesn't agree with you anyways, neither do most Christian scholars. Anyways, if the flood happened like, 6000 years ago (?) or so, that's not enough time for evolution to make pigmies, Chinks, Eskimos... Even YOU know that.
> ...


So how many years ago? Like 5000? Less? Because that's not enough time for, what was it, 8 people to evolve into all the different kinds of humans that there are today. And for all the animals that they had on the Ark to evolve into the millions of species there are today. Do you agree?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

I am a YEC, young earth creationist, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince me to be otherwise. In other words, a friendly challenge for anyone who is up for it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > you YEC'ists........ you YEC'ists....... you YEC'ists....... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists...... you YEC'ists..
> ...


You should realize that your arguments are in lock step (goose step), with the YEC'ist crowd. So yeah, your appeals to magic and supernaturalism are thoroughly refuted.

Tell us about the talking snakes.


----------



## Taz (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> I am a YEC, young earth creationist, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince me to be otherwise. In other words, a friendly challenge for anyone who is up for it.


You said you were going to show me proof of god. What happened?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > For your enjoyment:  The Scientific Case Against Evolution
> ...



Evolution is a religion itself. There is no valid scientific proof of it. Show us just one half-bird-half-man even within your billions of years old fossil record. You can't because there never was such a creature. Why is the Sahara Desert only dated to some 4,000 years?  The Mississippi Delta is growing every year. Why isn't it much larger than it is?  The magnetic field is weakening. Were the earth billions of years old, the magnetic field would have killed everything on earth years ago. Why are there petrified trees standing upright without roots and standing in different sediment layers dated thousands of years apart?  The same tree!! The mountains are eroding away every year. If the earth is billions of years old, why are the mountains still so high?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > For your enjoyment:  The Scientific Case Against Evolution
> ...



I notice you didn't bother an even feeble attempt to discredit its points though.


----------



## hobelim (Oct 21, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> I am a YEC, young earth creationist, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince me to be otherwise. In other words, a friendly challenge for anyone who is up for it.




I think its unlikely that anyone with even the least intelligence would want to get into a debate with someone who begins the challenge by saying, " I'm a moron and no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise."


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You noticed that, did ya'?

The ICR discredits itself without a single assist from me.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


It's difficult to believe people like you really exist.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Existed for a lot longer than you have, Dear.


----------



## jillian (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



natural selection a/k/a evolution is not religion. it is science. but thank yo for illustrating the problem with people who get confused between religion and science.

the rest of your dissertation is meaningless because it is made up in your head.


----------



## jillian (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



and?  ignorance has always existed. if it weren't for science, people like you would still be saying the earth is the center of the universe and killing people for proving otherwise.

you can believe whatever you want. so long as you keep it out of schools. 

thanks.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you asked me that question before and I answered it.....apparently you didn't bother to read my answer then......go back and do so now....if you have difficulty finding it, look for comments about Mitochondrial Eve......

and no, I do not believe it would take millions of years for the species we have today to evolve.......millions of years are only necessary if you believe evolution is the result of random shit happening randomly.......intelligent design does not need millions of years.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you know.....actually, its your arguments that hinge on a belief in a young earth, not mine......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

[QUOTE="PostmodernProph, post: 10013198, member: 47091"[/QUOTE]



> you realize, of course, that since I'm not a young earther, you haven't actually raised a defense to anything I have posted since approximately the first week in June........





> You should realize that your arguments are in lock step (goose step), with the YEC'ist crowd.


you know.....actually, its your arguments that hinge on a belief in a young earth, not mine......[/QUOTE]
Actually, no. I've provided the data that refutes your YEC'ist claims to the Ark tale and those implications relative to the age of the planet and the biological evolution.

Make a case for us about dinosaurs on the Ark. Or, just enter another thread and vent like a petulant child because those heathen non-believers won't accept your nonsensical claims.


----------



## Taz (Oct 21, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


As if I'm going to go searching through this shit pile, lol. Either answer the question or admit that you have no clue.

So you think that 5000 years is enough time to evolve 8 people into everyone? Because 5000 years ago puts us in the pyramid era and there were already millions of people by then. (Creation has been calculated to about 4004BC).


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

hobelim said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > I am a YEC, young earth creationist, and there is nothing anyone can say to convince me to be otherwise. In other words, a friendly challenge for anyone who is up for it.
> ...


And how old do suggest the earth is?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Sounds like *you've* never heard of it.  According to you, mud came up with the specific codes then implemented them in a 3-D sequence to create life.  Why has mud stopped doing that? 

Here Ho, 
Probability and Order Versus Evolution


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I've never made that characterization. It's actually pointless and ignorant. Not surprisingly, it's a pointless and ignorant characterization made by another of the YEC'ists. 

You extremists are wrong, consistently.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

uh o, Holly, look out!  It's a protein molecule!


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



A religion is something believed in.

Science is :
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.

Evolution is in reality only an unproven THEORY.  That is why it is called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.  There has been no OBSERVATION of evolution.

Again, where is your half-bird - half man or fish or rock within that fossil record you so proudly point to?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Evolution is only a theory. It is not proven science as you claim. It should be taken out of schools. Only proven science should be taught in schools.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

Or mention it in passing as a disproved theory:

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or greater is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance are 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them. The odds of entire cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40, 000th power! (calculated by famous British scientist Frederick Hoyle). How large is this number? Consider that the total number of atoms in the entire universe is 10 to the 82 power.

And then teach them that mud doesn't have the ability to create and program amino acids to be right handed and left handed.

And then teach them the truth. They are here by design, and created by the only one intelligent enough to design an amino acid.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You're wrong. Your profound ignorance is your own worst nightmare.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Get someone with an education to look it up on the internet for you.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Or mention it in passing as a disproved theory:
> 
> Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or greater is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.
> 
> ...


Well, sorry. But your cut and paste slogans are only taken seriously among you fundie zealots.

Did you realize the first sentence in your cut and paste slogan brings up two pages of links to fundie Christian websites?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You should look it up. You're the one in need of education outside of your madrassah.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> uh o, Holly, look out!  It's a protein molecule!


Oh, look out cut and paste zealot. Your cutting and pasting has been exposed as a fraud.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have. I found out that it is only a theory.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Your ignorance is not my problem.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I'm afraid that getting your science from fundamentalist Christian ministries will always leave you ignorant and a target of ridicule.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Statisticians think that is exactly enough time...  It fact, we are spot on as far as population is concerned, if the flood happened.   Look at how many people should be here if the flood didn't happen:
Human Population Evidence for a Young Earth

Where are all of your people?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Stop making yours, mine.  Study before you type, and saves us all a lot of time.  Start with the story of Noah and the ark in the Qur'an...


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



At least I have something to declare. All you have are insults and denial. You put up no facts nor do you dispute anything anyone else puts up. You simply dismiss wholesale without debate.

Is Evolution Science - Creation Studies Institute


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


"Twoof in genesis"

Are you serious?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You actually don't have anything to declare.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Failed English too, I see.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


It's your fairytale. 

Tell us about dinosaurs on the Ark.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



That won't support your lack of a defendable  argument.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Where's your half-man - half-bird again?  Actually, if the earth was 4 1/2 billion years old, the population would be more than the earth could hold.  The population actually supports an earth age of 6,000 years.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 21, 2014)

OMG!!! OMG!!!  I just had a half-bird - half-man creature fly into my windshield!!  There was a whole covey of them roosting on the power lines out by Miller's cornfield.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> OMG!!! OMG!!!  I just had a half-bird - half-man creature fly into my windshield!!  There was a whole covey of them roosting on the power lines out by Miller's cornfield.


You're really just a clown.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

This has been kind of kicking around the back of my mind. I just did some images searches and this is the best I came up with. I would love a broader spectrum picture if anyone knows where one is. So here are three ethnic groups. Supposedly at the root of it we all came from the mother of the guy in the middle. Why these three people look different is not from evolution. Agreed? It is from adaptation. Is that right? My question is, does that really make sense? My guess would be when the LORD scattered the people he gave each one certain characteristics. I really do not know but it would seem to be the most logical conclusion given all the information at hand.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 21, 2014)

eskimo


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 21, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


why would I admit I have no clue when I gave you a perfectly good answer the first time you asked.....its not my fault you don't read the threads you post in......



> So you think that 5000 years is enough time to evolve 8 people into everyone? Because 5000 years ago puts us in the pyramid era and there were already millions of people by then. (Creation has been calculated to about 4004BC).


no you simple minded twit.....I do not think that 5000 years is enough time for people to evolve......I don't even think 5000 years is enough to get your head out of your ass and realize I don't believe it happened 5000 years ago.....


----------



## jillian (Oct 21, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



people who don't believe in or understand science really shouldn't pontificate about it.

now let's pretend that the earth is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs existed with man.


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Oct 21, 2014)

Dinosaurs exist with Man even today.​


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 21, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Then I guess there's no point in asking Hollie why she thinks dinosaurs were still here 4,400 years ago.  
Or the 1% success rate of evolution.  The survival of the fittest failed 99% of the species that used to be here.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Then there's no point in asking you what you're babbling about because you don't know.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So how long ago did it happen? You tell me. 
And if you're so sure that you answered the other question, post me a link, I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Sure, mathematically, 8 people could possibly multiply to the number of people that we have now, but is it enough time for those 8 people to have evolved into all the different Asians, pigmies, Indians, Arabs, assorted bush people...?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


But why do people of different races look different?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Hollie does that all the time.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


fine, be lazy......the last time I was asked the same question, my reply was "sorry...I don't have a date......nor do I need one.....however, I will point out that studies of DNA have shown that all humans currently in existence are the descendants of a single woman who lived sometime between 50k and 500k (likely 120k-150k) years ago.....that might be a likely target...."


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Do you have a link to a credible source?


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


What are you talking about? Please explain.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



While people who can't defend their beliefs should cast no stones at others. Where's your transitional specimen?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


?


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You can't even explain your own answer?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


(Wow. Talk about your serendipitous timing.)

This is from National Geographic May 19th 2009, five years ago:
*"MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?*


> ...
> The fossil, he says, bridges the evolutionary split between higher primates such as monkeys, apes, and humans and their more distant relatives such as lemurs.
> 
> "This is the first link to all humans," Hurum, of the Natural History Museum in Oslo, Norway, said in a statement. Ida represents "*the closest thing we can get to a direct ancestor*."
> ...


 (Bolding mine)
Yep, there it is. Five years ago 47 million year old lemur fossil was found that cleared up all that evolutionary assuming stuff. If religion tried to pull a rabbit out of a hat like this we would get laughed out of the room but when 'science' does it, well, that is deductive reasoning. 

Trust me, I went through the exact same process of believing but at some point common sense will simply tell you there is a God. Anything other explanation just gets to difficult to justify. 

[What ever happened to our 'quote' button and preview post ability?]


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You asked me to explain. What part do you not understand: 'people', 'different', 'races', 'look', 'different'? You want a link to a dictionary or something?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


wtf.....you've never heard of mitochondrial eve?.......
will you consider Scientific American to be a credible source.....here's an article about DNA studies about both the genetic Adam and the genetic Eve....
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time Nature News Comment


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Trust me. I have no reason to trust you.

Did you happen to miss that the silly "missing link" terminology was abandoned by paleontologists back in the 1960's?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



You somehow missed it. The article is not referencing a literal A&E.

Take the time to read the articles you post. Otherwise, you make yourself look the ignorant boob you look like when you presume a literal A&E.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


are you really as stupid as you look?......we aren't even discussing the biblical Adam and Eve.......we're discussing the flood and whether it would be scientifically possible for all of humanity to have descended from one woman since it occurred.......


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That line obviously was not for you and sorry, I missed the memo.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I see you are taking a while. To save you some time searching: Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Did you miss the memo that your "Missing Link" is no such thing?

Don't you find it interesting that the peer review process provides the means for examination by independent agents?

But, as we know, this is why the Fundamentalist Christian ministries do not publish in the _Journal Nature_

Controversial Ida Fossil No Missing Link - CBS News



> Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.
> 
> In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.
> 
> He and his colleagues compared 360 specific anatomical features of 117 living and extinct primate species to draw up a family tree. They report the results in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


obviously its the 'why' that's giving him the most trouble.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It's you, "angry fundie man", who is discussing the Flood tale. That discussion is not taking place among the relevant science community as there is no evidence to support such tales and fables. 

What discussion is there to be had about all of humanity descending from one woman when there was no flood.

You're even more befuddled as there was not one woman left after the tales and fable of the flood. There was Noah and his immediate family, you know, incestuous and familial relations required to repopulate the earth.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Wait, so you are saying that the best/only missing link evidence was thrown out five months after it was announced? So you are saying there no candidate for a missing link whatsoever in a day and age where supposedly we pretty much know everything? Taz must be feeling so abandoned.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


I was half expecting a, "They don't." or something equally oblivious to reality.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Read what I provided to you. There was no "missing link".

As opposed to religious dogma that unchanging even when it shown to be false, the process of science is open to modify and adjust as new data becomes available.

Did you know that rattling bones and reading tea leaves will not cure a bacterial infection but modern medicine can?


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


From your link: "this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time." How do you explain this?
And this "This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The finding provided evidence for the theory that modern humans evolved in Africa before migrating to other continents." 200,000 years ago? "evolved"? This is not bible worthy?
How about this: "Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago." Adam and Eve lived 100,000 years apart? In the garden of Eden? Huh?
Let's start with these questions before proceeding.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


There are lots of them. Do a search.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Randy asked a question that he couldn't answer himself. Why do people look different? Without looking it up scientifically, I'd say that a) evolution, and b) some kinds of variables in each species genes? Is there another answer?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Did you just use the term 'missing link'? Did you not get the memo either? I am all for science and everything it can show, and not show. Some people like to use religion for personal gain, true.

I would greatly appreciate it if you never again bring up witchery and the like when discussion God with me.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


PostmodernProph, he directed that question at you so the that line of questioning is all yours if you want it. There is really no pleasure in besting Taz.


----------



## jillian (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



I don't have to defend science to a religious zealot. you should really stop putting religion and science on the same level. they are not comparable. the only "proof" you have of your beliefs is your belief. that's circular reasoning.


----------



## jillian (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



stop pretending your faith-based nonsense is science.

you don't like the history of your beliefs being put before you? i'd suggest that's too bad since witch burnings, crusades, the inquisition and imprisonment and murder of scientists is part of that belief system.

you should probably get over it.


----------



## jillian (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



i'm pretty sure if it isn't in his bible, he isn't aware of it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Have you forgotten already? It was you who posted the article


RandomVariable said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


Have you forgotten what you posted? It was you (post #666), who linked to the National Geographic article regarding the silly "missing link" fossil.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Science has repeatedly proved religion and there are many scientists who will admit it. Take Sir Isaac Newton for example.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Besting me? You can't even answer your own question.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Link? Proof?


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

jillian said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


What other things are you *'pretty sure'* about. You 'pretty sure' there is no God.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


There _was_ a flood but it was regional, not global, so asians and blacks were never endangered to begin with.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Highlight "Sir Isaac Newton" and right click "Search Google for 'Sir Isaac Newton'", or whatever your option is. Click the first link, in the table of contents of the page it is section 3. The second link from the search is a whole page dedicated to the subject. F* man, give me your street address and I will drop by for lunch and spoon feed you.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


You got a link or not? Geez, for a guy of the bible, you sure aren't very friendly or helpful. What did Newton prove about religion? Anything?


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


The bible says otherwise. Please try again.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


That is because apparently because you know next to nothing off the top of your head and are too lazy to look anything up. This is why it is not even besting you. You just get annoying after a while.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You make a claim then can't even back it up with a link? Man, you're pathetic. So no, science hasn't proven religion or god. You just made that up.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Well no, the bible _doesn't_ say that. Christians just don't know how to read, and Atheists are to caught up trolling Christians to consider the truth. Here's a point-by-point breakdown of what the bible says: Yes Noah s Flood May Have Happened But Not Over the Whole Earth NCSE

Anyway, I think this is a bait thread so since I'm not your target audience a link to the truth is all I have to say about this topic.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We have found the missing link. It is Hollie.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



There's not a single one even in the fossil record.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Yes. Even Albert Einstein believed in intelligent design.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

jillian said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Well duhhh. I've actually posted more links to back up my beliefs than anyone else although I keep begging you and Hollie to post something to back up your beliefs.  Again. where is your transitional specimen even within the fossil record. Show it to us.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...


From your link: "The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth". So the bible describes a worldwide flood.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


There certainly is.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Actually, he didn't. It's irrelevant to your argument.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...



Indeed he did. Why don't you back up anything you say?  I know. You can't.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Paleontologists have already done that.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You offered only a specious opinion.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> From your link: "The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth". So the bible describes a worldwide flood.


You quoted _half_ of the first line from the introduction while ignoring that the article outlines Genesis _not_ describing a global flood. I'm actually impressed, most don't even click the link to then deliberately misrepresent it as you just did.

...but I guess that's the theme of this thread, isn't it...misrepresenting something that you've read. You and Christians are doing this, you're both wrong but you won't hear it, so....have fun


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


????....given that this is the "Questions About Noah" thread, I suspect we all are......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


drowning.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Except for those who are not. 

Not paying attention, as usual.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So, per the fable, that would imply Noah made no effort to rescue helpless victims. Couldn't Noah have just made a bit more room on the Ark? Maybe double up some of the dinosaurs into economy class?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

If evolution is correct we should be walking on the bones of the transition species.  For you to be correct, there *should be *simple one celled organisms.  There are none and never has been any.  If one celled amoebas are complex from the beginning, who designed the amino acids that passed on the information for that one cell to be able to live?

Take a bunch of marbles, and toss them in a mud puddle and see if they line up in a particular manner.  If they line up in a specified sequence, then yes, mud is magic and produces life. 

Since 99% of the species that were living on this earth have gone extinct, evolution is an epic fail.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > RandomVariable said:
> ...


if you already knew the answer, why ask it?......the problem seems to be that you don't realize Christians have no problem recognizing that evolution explains why we have both yellow and blue butterflies and Swedes as well as Samoans.......the silly part comes in when you folks try to say that evolution means human beings and lemurs have a common ancestor.......(or that they WERE our ancestor)......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


/shrugs.....you should have read the story.....there were no helpless victims......


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Well, Hollie, what have you done to make them comfortable?  Since you seem to think dinosaurs still existed in Noah's time?
You must believe they are still here now,  where do you lodge your Tyrannosaurus Rex?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



are you a bible literalist like Hollie?......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> If evolution is correct we should be walking on the bones of the transition species.  For you to be correct, there *should be *simple one celled organisms.  There are none and never has been any.  If one celled amoebas are complex from the beginning, who designed the amino acids that passed on the information for that one cell to be able to live?
> 
> Take a bunch of marbles, and toss them in a mud puddle and see if they line up in a particular manner.  If they line up in a specified sequence, then yes, mud is magic and produces life.
> 
> Since 99% of the species that were living on this earth have gone extinct, evolution is an epic fail.


Your ignorance is the epic fail.

Although what's interesting is that your "99%" claim actually suggests your gawds are incompetent, inept "designers"


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/shrugs....those who are not are in the wrong thread......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Although what's interesting is that your "99%" claim actually suggests your gawds are incompetent, inept "designers"


not at all......climates on this planet change.....we have cycles ranging from cold to hot.....those creatures which thrive in cold cannot survive in hot....the designer created creatures who can adapt.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Well, Hollie, what have you done to make them comfortable?  Since you seem to think dinosaurs still existed in Noah's time?
> You must believe they are still here now,  where do you lodge your Tyrannosaurus Rex?


It's you fundies who need to resolve the fossil record with biblical tales and fables of a planet that is 6,000 years old and a global flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago. And then there's the talking snake, thingy.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


/shrugs....you're always in the wrong thread. 

Did you know that one or more of the gawds invented punctuation?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Although what's interesting is that your "99%" claim actually suggests your gawds are incompetent, inept "designers"
> ...


All that happened in just 6,000 years?

Maybe the designer of your designer gawds forgot to supply all of the blueprints and operating instructions to the new gawds?

Or more likely, yours was among the most goofy, pretentious and absurdly juvenile posts ever.... even by your stellar standards of goofy, pretentious and absurdly juvenile banter.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Hollie, what have you done to make them comfortable?  Since you seem to think dinosaurs still existed in Noah's time?
> ...


I have no need at all to consider your claims of a 6000 year old earth......that's for you to live with.....


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> If evolution is correct we should be walking on the bones of the transition species.


Every species is a transition species. You are a transtition species.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


????.....you worship the guy who invented punctuation?......what a strange religion.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


if that's what you choose to believe, you'll have to reconcile it with science.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


On the contrary, your extremist views coincide precisely with those of the most notorious fundie Christian ministries.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie Flintstone.   Where's Dino Hol,  and all the bones of the transitions that were to become dino?  We aren't looking for one missing link, we should have billions of missing links to document when dino became a Rex instead of a puppy.
And that many more for every other species you think evolved into something else.

Where are all of those evolution in progress mutants?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


No need. The natural world has no requirement for your multI-gods. It's only you YEC'ists who have a requirement for literal rendering of bible tales.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...


Is there a general agreement between Christians that the bible isn't true? I'm mean, if you're saying that the world wasn't made in 6 days, no flood, no talking snake... then you probably aren't a Christian.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie Flintstone.   Where's Dino Hol,  and all the bones of the transitions that were to become dino?  We aren't looking for one missing link, we should have billions of missing links to document when dino became a Rex instead of a puppy.
> And that many more for every other species you think evolved into something else.
> 
> Where are all of those evolution in progress mutants?


Don't be a fool. T-Rex didn't become a dog. T-Rex became a chicken.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie Flintstone.   Where's Dino Hol,  and all the bones of the transitions that were to become dino?  We aren't looking for one missing link, we should have billions of missing links to document when dino became a Rex instead of a puppy.
> And that many more for every other species you think evolved into something else.
> 
> Where are all of those evolution in progress mutants?


It's comical.  When you extremists get so flustered you resort to childish name-calling.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So when Adam and Eve were kicked out of Eden, there were already other people on earth? Ummm. no.


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > From your link: "The Bible (Genesis 6–9) describes a worldwide flood (the Noachian Flood) covering even the highest mountains of the earth". So the bible describes a worldwide flood.
> ...


Maybe you should try a link that doesn't contradict itself then? Just saying.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution is correct we should be walking on the bones of the transition species.
> ...



And just what do you think I am going to transition into, a bear?  A watermelon?  A kitty?  In fact as evolution goes, some scientists think you are devolving.  How long will it take for you to start swinging through the trees?  And will there be a mound of missing links to show your progression backwards into a monkey?  And how long do you think that would take? Or do you think it happens automatically?  Monkey, Monkey, Monkey Man?  Man Man Man Monkey?  Is that why there are no transition fossils for every single species?

And where are all of the bones of those that made the billion years of mutations it took to transition into me?
And could you please show me a simple eye?  And the billions of mutant eyes that didn't work until the eye got the random sequence of amino acids in the order necessary to make the eye work?  And then randomly did the exact same sequence/mistake over and over for billions of years with out making another random mistake?   And show me where those strands of amino acids came from, and where they received their programing so as to line up in the specific order necessary for the eye to function.  How many blind species did it take to produce one eye that worked?    Or was the eye always complex, and if so, how did soup program it to work?  Show me a functioning simple eye..........


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie Flintstone.   Where's Dino Hol,  and all the bones of the transitions that were to become dino?  We aren't looking for one missing link, we should have billions of missing links to document when dino became a Rex instead of a puppy.
> ...



More comical than you pretending not to? fundie fundie mo monday banana fana fo....
Hollie Folly, where did amino acids learn to line up the way they do in DNA?


----------



## Taz (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


You're not just grasping at straws, you're FLAILING!!! 
So are you saying that evolution has stopped? Or never was?


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


I see. You do not understand the process of evolution. Perhaps you've seen to many croco-duck videos. The mutations are very slight. Un-noticable between each generation but after thousands of generations there is enough difference that a new spieces emerges from the original after many variations. Look at this colour graph. Imagine the first green line is a spieces. The last blue line represents another spieces. You can't pinpoint the exact time green became blue. It happened over a long period of time with minute variations between the gererations of offspring.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Oh my. You angry christian fundies are the most science-haten' ist folks on the planet.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


thank god that's up to God and not to you.......because you're dumber than a stump......


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

*How does an amino acid know *if it is right handed or left handed,  and which is necessary, and in what sequence, for an eye to function?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Love science Hollie, it proves intelligent design.  Unless you are able to answer the question I just asked.  Is your answer soup did it?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


......what on earth are you going on about......Adam and Eve had left Eden before the flood.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


interesting....so does this mean you think blue evolved from green?.....because science doesn't support that either.....


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

Taz said:


> Is there a general agreement between Christians that the bible isn't true? I'm mean, if you're saying that the world wasn't made in 6 days, no flood, no talking snake... then you probably aren't a Christian.


I'm apparently not what _you think_ a Christian is. The 'days' were not 24hrs (and we're still in the 7th day) as the word used is 'yom' which is a period of time with a beginning and end, not necessarily 24hrs; the Epic of Gilgamesh was massive but regional, not global; the snake is a sigil like a team mascot, not a literal being; Joshua's missing day was experienced by many cultures all over the world, so whatever happened was experienced by all; Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by volcanic activity; the plagues of Egypt were likewise caused by a volcano....

Back to the flood, "whole earth" comes from the Hebrew "kol erets" which does not mean the whole planet unless it first names the whole planet specifically. If 'kol erets' isn't prefaced with a specific name then it refers to a generic land mass of subjective size and shape.

What most don't realize (because Churches don't advocate critical thinking) is that the bronze age (or possibly earlier) civilization which recorded that story hadn't explored the whole planet, had no science, and simply couldn't have observed the whole Earth to know rather or not the flood was literally global. All the land _they knew of_ was flooded, and so _to them_ it was the whole world, even-though objectivity it wasn't the whole globe. It was just all the land _they were aware of_, that's why they didn't preface "kol erets" with the planet's name, which is why kol erets translated into English as "whole earth" means the local area and not the whole globe.

This is just one example of exactly how the bible is flawed and therefore not the word of God. 

The word of God has no language.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Love science Hollie, it proves intelligent design.  Unless you are able to answer the question I just asked.  Is your answer soup did it?


You should know that at this stage, everyone's aware of the re-branding of Christian fundamentalism as ID'iosy.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Did they keep the talking snake as a pet?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> *How does an amino acid know *if it is right handed or left handed,  and which is necessary, and in what sequence, for an eye to function?


The gawds did it.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And Creationists have proven them wrong and totally destroyed them in debate.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



The talking snake is your god.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


there's a good chance the talking snake is keeping you as a pet.......


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a general agreement between Christians that the bible isn't true? I'm mean, if you're saying that the world wasn't made in 6 days, no flood, no talking snake... then you probably aren't a Christian.
> ...



Adam himself spoke each and every language in the world. The Bible is not mixed up. It is you that is messed up.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Of course they have, dear.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...



Thousands and thousands and thousands and millions and millions of years. It's actually so slow it never even happened.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 22, 2014)

> Adam himself spoke each and every language in the world. The Bible is not mixed up. It is you that is messed up.



All one language, since there was only one until the Tower of Babel.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Love science Hollie, it proves intelligent design.  Unless you are able to answer the question I just asked.  Is your answer soup did it?
> ...



Do you think Adam was a Southern Baptist?  Did Adam look upon a chicken as being a sacred bird?


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> The Bible is not mixed up. It is you that is messed up.


It's Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) who's mixed up for using a telescoped and incomplete genealogy of Adam to Noah. Back in the day they only recorded important household names. It wasn't like the census of today where we record every single person. Names were left out of the genealogy which YEC is based on. That's just another example of exactly how the bible is flawed and therefore not the word of God.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hollie can you even say amino acid?  You run so far from it you are starting to look really small...  You dodge the substance because you can't explain it.  Do you know anything *at all *about them, or is fundie the most we can expect from you?

And T, What you suggest is scientifically impossible.  And the reason for that is again, very well designed DNA.  Self correcting DNA I might add.  Which is why we remain human to this day, just like we were designed.   What did you do to DNA to make it stop correcting  every cell for  millions not thousands of years to produce something other than what the original cell was programed to do?
To get blue, you have to add something not indigenous to green. If green had DNA it would correct that mis-shaded cell  and produce a correct one in it's place to remain green.  Amino acids either line up correctly or the cell doesn't function.  If they line up incorrectly it does not lead to blue.  It  scrapes that  off shaded molecule and starts again correctly.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





The Irish Ram said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



That's so silly. You owe it to yourself to get data on DNA from sources other than fundamentalist  christian ministries.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

a-m-i-n-o  a-c-i-d-s  
Tell me, how do they know if they are right or left handed and where specifically, they should adhere?

Which ones need to attach for your eyes to read this,  right or left?  How do they know that?  How do they know that a left handed one needs to be next to 2 right handed amino acid strands to create protein? 

And who made this statement?"The eye to this day, gives me a cold shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The Bible is not mixed up. It is you that is messed up.
> ...


actually, isn't it merely an example of how Ussher was flawed and not the word of God?.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> a-m-i-n-o  a-c-i-d-s
> Tell me, how do they know if they are right or left handed and where specifically, they should adhere?
> 
> Which ones need to attach for your eyes to read this,  right or left?  How do they know that?  How do they know that a left handed one needs to be next to 2 right handed amino acid strands to create protein?
> ...


I do wish you religious extremists would actually confirm your phony "quotes".

Your all-seeing, all-powerful "eye" quote is a staple of fundie Christian ministries and like so much that comes out of your madrasahs, it's a fake.

Here is the actual material:

Cretinism or Evilution Darwin Quotations on Complexity


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Actually, there is no word of the gods. All of the bibles are written by men, none of whom had ever claimed to have heard voices or taken a meeting with the Big Cheese.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



Jude did his little book on you. There is nothing new under the sun. Apostates have been around since Cain.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > a-m-i-n-o  a-c-i-d-s
> ...



You have offered nothing for us to research. You have actually posted nothing that actually contradicts any of our claims.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...




Actually yes.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

It all began with a BIG BANG.  Everything was concentrated into an area the size of a pin head. Something unknown caused a huge explosion. Everything flew off in random directions. Why some planets rev.olve in opposite directions is unexplained as well.  Where the energy that caused the Big Bang came into being in the first place is also unexplained.  By chance, one world came out of the Bang and was able to sustain life. This life sprang from inorganic material.  The evolution religion proclaims all life came from a rock. Christians claim an intelligent God created all life as well as everything else. Now, I must ask you:  Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Our claims? You're a member of Team Zealot?

I've actually posted the content of a letter written by Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (the second bulleted item) which identifies the fraudulent "quote-mine" used by Team Zealot

Don't be an accomplice to fraud.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?


"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."
Genesis 3:19

.....so I guess that means the rock is my mother.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



By Charles Darwin?  Really??  LOL!!  Charles Darwin is a fossil himself.  He even made the title of his work "The Origin of the Species" in order to avoid the Biblical  "each after his own kind" which would have lost his case for him.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?
> ...



To each his own. My Mom was Eve. I am The Human Being.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Shouldn't you go outside and play in traffic?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Absolutely not. Not one.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos. 


I have links to all 17 videos.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Is this how the creationist wins the debate. With bad humour.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 22, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.
> 
> 
> I have links to all 1
> ...


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 22, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ministers don't do DNA research.  Those are "your" people, and they say that the odds of one living cell happening by chance is out of the realm of possibility.  Random never happened.  For life to begin, and before it begins, acids need to be encoded and directed to specific areas in the correct order.  And they have to be aware of whether they are right handed or left handed.  How does a right handed amino acid know which it is, and when and where to take it's place, and how does the left know it's a lefty? 
There is no such thing as a simple cell, you simple ton.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 22, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> To each his own. My Mom was Eve. I am The Human Being.


Adam and Eve weren't even the first humans. Adam and Eve were the first on team Sons Of God, but other humans on team Daughters Of Men were already well established, as Adam and Eve discovered after leaving the garden.

You must have performed some fancy reserch if you can trace your heratage all the way back to Canaan.

...there I go analyzing again....


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 23, 2014)

> Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.


None that I know.    If they do, I would direct them to the Bible, because even science doesn't believe that premise  since the discovery of DNA.  That is what we use to win the debate.
Not one person here has addressed the scientific understanding, that it is impossible for chance to create a protein molecule.  Molecular biology crippled the random theory.  I have already provided the mathematical odds of your scenario.  And it is far outside of the realm of possibility.  Not one person on this thread can explain how amino acids were programed to create the complex life of a single cell.   Random is an impossibility, no longer supported by science.  They know better.

You just pretend they haven't reached that conclusion.   If that is your stance, then you have to offer a viable explanation  as to how amino acids know the difference between right and left, know which one they are, and where they fit into the program.  Because we know for a fact they do. And that a specific code does exist to create life.  The code created life.  Life didn't create the code.  So who did?
Fundie, fundie fundie is Hollie's explanation.  Do you have a better explanation of how amino acids were programed to create life, because without that code there would be no life.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Not one person here has addressed the scientific understanding, that it is impossible for chance to create a protein molecule.  Molecular biology crippled the random theory.  I have already provided the mathematical odds of your scenario.  And it is far outside of the realm of possibility.  Not one person on this thread can explain how amino acids were programed to create the complex life of a single cell.


MBE

Amino Acids Evolution Learn Science at Scitable

Happy reading


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
> 
> 
> None that I know.


Guess you never heard of Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind Etc... 


> If they do, I would direct them to the Bible, because even science doesn't believe that premise since the discovery of DNA.


All these people ever do is quote scripture from the bible. Where have you been? Science has never supported that premise before or after DNA.


> That is what we use to win the debate.


Debate on what. We are talking about evolution but you keep switching back to Abiogenesis.


> Not one person here has addressed the scientific understanding, that it is impossible for chance to create a protein molecule.  Molecular biology crippled the random theory.  I have already provided the mathematical odds of your scenario.  And it is far outside of the realm of possibility.  Not one person on this thread can explain how amino acids were programed to create the complex life of a single cell.   Random is an impossibility, no longer supported by science.


 Explained in post #787 





> They know better.


Yes, we do know better. We also don't pretend that we will have all the answers surrounding Abiogenesis, but we acknowlege the best answers we have so far and we keep working on them to discover more mysteries.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 23, 2014)

> "Pezz, post: 10026129, member: 51970"]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Am aware and also know the problem they have.  It is a perspective that still can't provide an answer to what programed the amino acids.  That is why they say, "it may have", or "it probably reacted this way".
But here is their obstacle.  After many long years of trying to get RNA to produce, all they have been able to do is get a very few partial molecules, and never a complete one in their soup. The RNA world has failed to produce.  It is not responsible for coding amino acids.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Am aware and also know the problem they have.  It is a perspective that still can't provide an answer to what programed the amino acids.  That is why they say, "it may have", or "it probably reacted this way".
> But here is their obstacle.  After many long years of trying to get RNA to produce, all they have been able to do is get a very few partial molecules, and never a complete one in their soup. The RNA world has failed to produce.  It is not responsible for coding amino acids.


We have no evidence that any external influence at all 'programed' them. So far as we can tell, amino acids turned into proteins all on their own.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I'm glad to see at least your tacit acceptance of the fraudulent "quote" you posted. With that in mind, do you get your biology from the same fraudulent christian ministries you get your "quotes" from?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > "Pezz, post: 10026129, member: 51970"]
> >
> >
> >
> ...


The article you linked to actually refutes the contention you, and your creation ministries are hoping to make. 

What you also fail to realize is that you're just a typical christian extremist in that nothing you have presented suggests "the gawds did it".

As we learned with the exposure of the fraudulent "quote" you stole from your creation ministries, you should avoid mindless cutting and pasting.

If you want science data, go to real scientists, not fundie Christian ministries.  

Speaking of soup:

Primordial Soup - It s Still Mmm-mmm Good - The Panda s Thumb


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Your banter has the unpleasant odor of Christian fundamentalist ministries. 

It's true that ministers don't do DNA research. None of the fundamentalist Christian warehouses: ICR, Disco' tute, etc., do any actual research, either. That's why the best refutation to Christian fundamentalists is to let the scientists who actually do the research post their works in peer reviewed journals.

Chirality of life Another false positive - The Panda s Thumb


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?
> ...


or that there is a lot of dust beneath your brow......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.


well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.
> 
> 
> I have links to all 17 videos.


Is this how the evolutionizer wins the debate. With bad video?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
> ...


This is the unfortunate result of YEC'ists getting their science from fundamentalist Christian madrassah's.

Unlike in the fundamentalist worldview where magic and supernaturalism are the source of instant humans, talking snakes and other such absurdities, biology works differently. New species don't happen instantly, or by magic, or by the birth of a new species. BTW fundie boy, you can't even correctly spell "spieces" let alone define what that is.

For the science illiterate / YEC'ists, evolution is defined as change in populations over time. The time frames are typically geologic, not magically overnight. In spite of your revulsion for science and in spite of attempts to define biological science as some grand, worldwide conspiracy, evolution remains incontestably the basis for any credible explanation for the diversity in living species.

The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> It all began with a BIG BANG.  Everything was concentrated into an area the size of a pin head. Something unknown caused a huge explosion. Everything flew off in random directions. Why some planets rev.olve in opposite directions is unexplained as well.  Where the energy that caused the Big Bang came into being in the first place is also unexplained.  By chance, one world came out of the Bang and was able to sustain life. This life sprang from inorganic material.  The evolution religion proclaims all life came from a rock. Christians claim an intelligent God created all life as well as everything else. Now, I must ask you:  Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?


It's possible that when a black hole gets too full, it explodes into another universe by ripping the fabric of time/space and creating a new one with a big bang. Could be very common, given the number of black holes in this universe.


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That's all you've got? Name calling? Because your bible only works if the flood wasn't global? And didn't kill all humans except for Noah and his peeps? And let's you cherry pick a little bit of evolution?


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I asked: From your link: "this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time." How do you explain this?
And you said "drowning". What I'm asking is when god kicked adam and eve out of eden, were there already people on earth when they got there?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > It all began with a BIG BANG.  Everything was concentrated into an area the size of a pin head. Something unknown caused a huge explosion. Everything flew off in random directions. Why some planets rev.olve in opposite directions is unexplained as well.  Where the energy that caused the Big Bang came into being in the first place is also unexplained.  By chance, one world came out of the Bang and was able to sustain life. This life sprang from inorganic material.  The evolution religion proclaims all life came from a rock. Christians claim an intelligent God created all life as well as everything else. Now, I must ask you:  Is Eve your mother or is a rock your mother?
> ...



It's possible, could be, might be?????


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Just noticed this reply. I have been ignoring this thread as it seems to have petered out. I do not think evolution or adaptation explains different appearances of ethnic groups. Sure it explains non-furry elephants because of temperature, different colored moth[es] because of bark color, different colored squirrels on different sides of the Rio Grande but what what were people evolving or adapting from to give different facial features?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


aw shucks......you tell me I'm not a real Christian and you're worried about a little name calling?.......atheists are supposed to be rational......obviously you're then, not a real atheist......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


1) this may be difficult for you to comprehend, even though we're in a thread about Noah......they may call them the genetic Adam and Eve in the Scientific American article, but in the context of this discussion it should be obvious we are discussing Noah and his wife, not the biblical Adam and Eve......
2) so when I said drowning I was referring to the folks who weren't with Noah and his family...
3) thus, you question was nonsensical......


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against a god.
It must be hard for you to get stumped on these bible related questions. Maybe you should go ask someone...


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your link said that there were other people alive during Adam and Eve's time. Like, aside from their children, how is that possible? Stumped again?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

RandomVariable said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


breeding in isolation from others reinforces certain physical characteristics.....for example, the Watusis and the pygmies were not that far apart geographically (at least relative to the Swedes and the Samoans), but there was little interbreeding between the tribes, thus they moved in different genetic directions......

through selective breeding we ended up with both Yorkshire terriers and wolfhounds over only a thousand years or so.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I certainly won't be asking someone who thinks being a Christian hinges on believing in a 6000 year old earth....by that standard, even Hollie would be a Christian.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no, my link said there were other people alive during the genetic-Adam and the genetic-Eve's time.......that has nothing at all to do with the biblical Adam and the biblical Eve.......you're a bit slow on this, aren't you.....


----------



## Meriweather (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Adam means 'man'.  The story in Genesis may have been formatted so that a single character, named Adam (man) is in reality the story of mankind.  If this is true, we can consider other possibilities.  Adam was the first tribe, and from Adam, other tribes split off.  If this were the case, we see the tribe of Cain who settled and farmed the land.  The tribe of Able were those who became shepherds and roamed from place to place.  In those times of no fences, it is easy to imagine the anger that occurred when sheep, goats, and cattle wandered into cultivated land and ate the crops.  It could have led to the first war, and the shepherds were killed.  

I am not saying this IS what happened, merely a different perception of Genesis that could answer questions about why there seems more people about than just members of one family.


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution. 

New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You have difficulty with a consistent argument so it's not surprising that you're perpetually befuddled that literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables such as supernatural creations of man and women and magical Arks certainly identified you as a YEC'ist.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So, among your three gods, was there more than one *poofing* people into existence.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> RandomVariable said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Was that a slightest opening for a rant. Good enough. I am running with it.

God seems to put things out there on a find line between explainable and/or coincidence and non-explainable and/or beyond coincidence. Take DNA for example, or evolution, or the Bible, or blood moons, solar eclipses, morality, life itself, and the list goes on and on. Case in point, ethnic physical features; could be explainable or could be the hand of God. I am going with the hand of God on this one. I could be completely wrong, or perhaps only partially wrong. This is how my worldview comes down: practically every miracle, for lack of a better word, I have experienced has been somewhere on the explainable/coincidence, EC, spectrum. I take each EC event with enough of a EC significance and I put it on the little EC graph in my head graphed by date and science-vs-God probability. (OK, I am not quite that systematic, but perhaps pretty close.) After a while there is just so much stuff in the recent/high God probability quadrant that accepting God falls squarely into Occam's razor. I also said, 'practically every miracle'. Even if I had a whole week of two dozen or more EC events crammed in the 'probably God' corner I still would not do something as crazy as start cramming my head full of Old Testament and preaching like there was no tomorrow on the religious forum of the message board. I am a news and political junkie by nature, or at least I used to be. It would take enough unquestionable God EC events that I walk around with the fear that God is going to wack me with the slightest misstep to get me to do something like that. Well, here I am.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no, dumbfuck.....it does not......the fact you've been pretending I am a young earther for the last four months makes me nothing other than the target of your lies.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It seems a bit dishonest on your part to hold a literalist view of supernatural gardens, magical Arks, talking snakes, etc., and deny you're a YEC'ist.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue. 

In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed. 

You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and its a whole lot dishonest of you to claim I hold a literalist view......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....


----------



## Taz (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


At least you know you're a coward.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.

I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.

A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.

That's why it's called transitional.




Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


When you hold a literalist view, you can be identified as a literalist.

That should be simple enough for you.


----------



## RandomVariable (Oct 23, 2014)

I've got it. The Bible talks about giants on the earth and the flood and dinosaurs. The giants rode on the dinosaurs because the horses were to small and then the flood washed them all away just like those cowboys trying to cross a forge during heavy rains. And that is exactly how it happened.


----------



## Steven_R (Oct 23, 2014)

So the giants were the Flintstones?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 23, 2014)

Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form  a DNA molecule in primordial soup?  We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing,  in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment.  It's abundant in oxygen.  No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA?  The information that they can't deny is there.  There is a cause attached to it.  It performs with a cause, it has an agenda.  Darwin didn't know that.  He believed that life was un-caused.  An accident, random chance.   We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer.   Like you, they would rather that not be the case.  Science says that is the case.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form  a DNA molecule in primordial soup?  We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing,  in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment.  It's abundant in oxygen.  No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
> Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA?  The information that they can't deny is there.  There is a cause attached to it.  It performs with a cause, it has an agenda.  Darwin didn't know that.  He believed that life was un-caused.  An accident, random chance.   We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer.   Like you, they would rather that not be the case.  Science says that is the case.



You're assigning human based attributes to DNA just as you assign human attributes to your inventions of gods.

"if there is a cause there is a causer."  Well then, do tell us about the hierarchy of gods which caused your gods, and the super-gods who caused those gods, and the....


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 23, 2014)

Science assigns human based attributes to DNA. There is no hierarchy of Gods in which you speak. 
Only one, with a cause.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And they still have not found actual links.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Ideally, this list would _only_ recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Science assigns human based attributes to DNA. There is no hierarchy of Gods in which you speak.
> Only one, with a cause.


Unless you're forgetting what you just wrote, it was you assigning human attributes to DNA, just as you do to your three gods. 

So what was the cause of your gods?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Who was the author of your wiki article? Too difficult to find a science journal for information on science?


----------



## peach174 (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 1A

*Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)*
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, _and_ have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?
*Stratigraphic gaps*
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not _at all_ continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and _much_ less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate _anything_ about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years _cannot_ show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.

Here is a list of many to look up.
Transitional fossils bibliography


----------



## Hollie (Oct 23, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


So yes. You agree there are transitional species.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
> ...


I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.
> ...


Actually watch all 17 videos. Every single question about Evolution and the story of Noah will be answered for you.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 23, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Watch these. They may help you.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


except.....I don't.....that really fucks up your "logic"......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I think its rather obvious......do you people never consider the consequences of what it is you claim to believe?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 23, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


I don't debate videos....they suck at responding to my criticism......if you want to enlighten us, type something into a post......


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Please explain what you mean.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


But we are dealinh with a whole lot of information here. Typing it out would take 50 full pages or more and would kill the the thread. I am also not the most eloquent at verbalizing my thoughts. Also it wouldn't kill you to learn something.


----------



## indiajo (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> [
> 
> again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....



You seem to have not the slightest ide what a species  is.
Learn about the biological nomenclatura.


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're a coward for not answering simple questions and just dodging them non-stop.
Do you believe in the biblical Adam and Eve? It appears not as you talk only about Mito A & E. You've also shown you don't believe in the worldwide flood as described in the bible. And you believe in evolution. Please return your Christian card as you aren't even one anyways.


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form  a DNA molecule in primordial soup?  We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing,  in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment.  It's abundant in oxygen.  No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
> Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA?  The information that they can't deny is there.  There is a cause attached to it.  It performs with a cause, it has an agenda.  Darwin didn't know that.  He believed that life was un-caused.  An accident, random chance.   We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer.   Like you, they would rather that not be the case.  Science says that is the case.


Early earth had no oxygen, which was a by-product of the first photosynthesising creatures.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


its not hard to figure out, but okay.......you believe that human beings evolved from some lesser creature.....at some point in time there had to be that creature which first met all the qualifications of a new species.....the first homo sapien........that should be obvious.......equally obvious would be that its parent would not have the qualifications of that new species.....because if it did, IT would have been the first homo sapien instead of its child.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


and when I tell you that something in the video I wasted time on was wrong would you be able to verbalize your response or would I have to track down the guy in the video and tell HIM where he went wrong?......why should I have to invest the time to listen to an argument you can't be bothered to type, type out what I find is wrong, type out here the explanation of why it is wrong and read you respond by saying "oh, you think you're smarter than the guy in the video?"........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's as though you're convinced ignorance is a virtue.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


listen, dumbfuck......I didn't respond about the biblical Adam and Eve because they have nothing to do with the discussion......ignoring your attempts at diversion, even if they happened because you weren't bright enough to realize they had nothing to do with the discussion doesn't make me a coward.......now, I'm not sure where you get your definition of Christian, but it obviously wasn't from a Bible.......you don't hand out the "Christian cards" and you don't get to ask for them back......

now, to stifle your whining for irrelevant answers....I believe there was a first man and a first woman......I believe they were created by God.......I believe they were disobedient.....I believe that a flood killed all except one family......I believe that green butterflies evolved from yellow butterflies and that evolution explains why we have 37k different kinds of beetle......I do not believe that the universe exists or that life crawled out of a mud puddle because of random shit happening randomly.......I do not believe that human beings and dung beetles have a common ancestor.......

I believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnate and he gave himself in sacrifice to atone for my disobedience and that therefore I will spend eternity in a very happy place......

so, do I get to keep my "Christian card" or do I not meet the approval of the atheist in charge of the pearly gates?........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


and yet, despite your repeated complaints, you have not yet made any attempt to point out what is wrong with my logic.......and I'm willing to bet you never will......


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Sure it has to do with this thread in general, which is exploring the stories in the bible to figure out if they're true or not. So you don't believe in the earliest fossils that show life existed billions of years ago (which is based on observable facts), but you believe that an invisible superbeing in another dimension that poofed everything into existence, and this without any observable proof whatsoever, who will punish you if you don't follow some random book written by men? Yeah, you get to keep your Christian card.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Supernaturalism is not a logical argument.

What's comical is that you can't offer a single, supportable bit of evidence for your personal opinions forged from the ignorance of religious fundamentalism.

Now would be a good time to explain your logic of talking snakes.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you know.....if you forget what the thread is about you could always read the title for a reminder......I believe fossils exist......I believe they show creatures such as that existed......that doesn't mean I have to believe that fossil A is an ancestor of fossil B (which obviously is NOT an observable fact)........


----------



## peach174 (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That is not what these scientists are saying.
No I don't agree, I agree with these scientists that transitional species has gaps.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


How could those fossils have existed if the planet is only 6,000 years old?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/grins.....I would gloat about winning the bet, but it was too easy a wager......you would never, ever attempt to actually engage in a debate on anything.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


another dumbfuck response.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



On the contrary, you've been forced on all occasions where the subject matter falls to facts and evidence to sidestep and evade.

Here, for example. 

Tell us about talking snakes and boat rides that never happened. Bring your best debate. Just make sure you bring facts and evidence to support your bible tales and fables. 

You can start with facts and evidence for talking snakes.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Don't let your extremist beliefs get in the way of your unsupportable arguments.


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So you can observe the evolution that happened after noah let the animals go (to make all the different butterflies...), but evolution didn't exist prior to that? So god made every fossilized creature as is, and evolution didn't start until after noah?


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 24, 2014)

I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.



It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.
> ...



Then the next question would be what started the evolution?
Something does not evolve from nothing.
Much of Science says that there must be some kind of intelligent design. The big bang theory would explain an intelligent designer.

Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is _only_ a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination. It has to be scientifically proven that someone made the sand castle or if it was done by nature.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


Much of science clearly does not say there must be some kind of intelligent design.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...





And that makes sense to you?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Must be nice indeed to consider one's own intelligence to be above that of Albert Einstein's:  http://www.rae.org/pdf/EinsteinIntelDesign.pdf


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Why wouldn't it make sense. Why bring aboard two of homosexual tendencies or two of the same sex?


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


It says 2 of every sort. 2 gays, 2 lesbians, 2 blacks, 2 whites, 2 pigmies, 2 eskimos, 2 asians, 2 Japanese, 2 arabs, 2 bushmen, 2 indians, so far that's 22 people, and there are probably others I haven't mentioned. Why did I never hear of these people?


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...




Why don't you go build a boat and try to put two of everything on it. Report back when you're done.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


Must be embarrassing to use "Revolution Against Evolution", someone's personal blog, for your science data.


----------



## peach174 (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




A Critique of PBS s Evolution

SEATTLE--In an ironic greeting to the seven-part public television series "Evolution" that begins tonight (Monday, September 24, 2001), 100 scientists have declared that they "are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." The signers say, "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Of course the scientist who don't believe have attacked Zogby's report. They also don't include that their own points of views are also biased by government grant money that is looking for their own answers that reflect their views.


----------



## Taz (Oct 24, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


100 out of how many scientists in the world? Millions? Tens of millions?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form  a DNA molecule in primordial soup?  We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing,  in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment.  It's abundant in oxygen.  No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
> ...



Not even close.  Photo dissociation begs to differ.  So does the ozone layer, an oxygen gas,  which filters out the ultraviolet radiation that would have prevented life, so says NASA.  No oxygen, no ozone level, no life due to radiation.  Ultraviolet
radiation destroys RNA and DNA.  Oxygen  removes methane and ammonia from the atmosphere. Without it amino acids would be DOA and so would we.

There is *no evidence* what so ever that primordial soup existed.  Darwin thought the ocean heated up from lightning and radiation to create life. Dilution and ozone proves that wrong.  But you still haven't addressed chirality.
If there was *any *evidence at all of primordial soup, and let's pretend that there was,  it would have created right handed and left handed building blocks necessary for life.
DNA and RNA have to be right handed.  Amino acids are left handed.

So, again, how do dextrorotary and levorotary molecules know which they are and where to line upon the DNA chain to create life? Primordial soup would have produced a 50/50 % of each.
No life.

Who programed the perfect code that results in the perfect arrangement of DNA?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Tens of millions of scientists?  I think you have scientists confused with sand, but for the sake of argument, one Einstein out of how many scientists in the world? Quality not quality.........


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



Where does it say that?  You writing your own Bible?  LOL!


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Carla_Danger said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



It's already been done. There's no worldwide flood in the future. Better you get some fire insurance instead.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I never claimed I was a "brain".  You are the product of your own admiration and inflated ego.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Primordial soup is a description of the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth history. 

You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to. 

As you are the one making claims that magic and supernaturalism were the causes for existence, what can you tell us about those methods?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Aww. Your feelings are hurt.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > I would really like to know what's going on the inside of a creationist's mind. They must be thinking "holy crap, all the facts do support evolution. Oh well, I'm going to dig my heels in and fight this no matter how stupid it makes me look because nothing, not even all the evidence to support it, will make me change my mind.
> ...



But we have told you, evolution is not true. The only evolution theory that may hold any water at all is macroevolution. None of the others make any sense or have ever been proven. Example:  Where is your constant for proving your claim of the earth's being 4 1/2 or so billions of years old. What do you have in your hands that is 4 1/2 billion years old that you can compare the earth's age against?  You have no standard by which to compare.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you'll have to take that issue up with people who believe in talking snakes and boat rides that never happened, silly child....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


what are you going on about now.....I said nothing about butterflies not evolving prior to the flood.....why do you keep making crap up?.....


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You made the statement that primordial soup existed in early earth history. Do you have in your labratory a sample, ie., a pint or quart, of this primordial soup you are speaking of that we may examine?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


some folks here think all you need is a puddle of mud and a little lightning....


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Hardly. You will never break through my superiority complex.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


they didn't bring two idiots.....that's why there weren't any atheists on board........


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...



Watching those Frankenstein movies will eventually get you to believing anything.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Yeah. That's why in 2014 the federal judges continue to rule against them being require to produce a photo ID to vote. They are still to uneducated to do it.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Tuatara said:
> ...


This may come as a shock to you, but your claiming evolution is not true is meaningless.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...





Did a snake tell you that, or was it your imaginary friend?


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Totally ignoring my point makes your argument meaningless and without defendable merit.


----------



## Carla_Danger (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...





I guess Einstein never smelled a fart.  LOL!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > peach174 said:
> ...


That's typically for you YEC'ists.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You made no point.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Satan is the one referred to as a snake.  In the same way I could say, Hollie twists every question you ask her, by making up things, like there is no Noah or flood mentioned in the Qur'an.  She's a real snake.
If you were well read you'd know that by the following conversation that took place between Satan and God.  It is the first prophecy in the Bible, and half has been fulfilled by Christ returning from the dead, alive.  The rest will come to fruition when Christ returns.


> *Genesis 3:15*
> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.



The snake is Satan.  Not the reptile variety. Reptiles aren't capable of enmity. Satan is.  The rest refers to the battle to come between Christ and Satan, and the outcome.  The heel is a non lethal  strike.  A crushed head is a fatal blow.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Primordial soup  in labs recreating the chemical and environmental conditions that existed in early earth fails to produce life, and the fact that oxygen did exist confirms it.  Exhaustive testing of rock and soil find no chemical mixture that could be responsible for the creation of a living cell.  Primordial soup creates tar. 
They can't find your soup.  They have however discovered design, and cause in the process.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

> You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to.



You poor soul.  Indeed science has come a long way since Darwin.  Enough DNA discovery  to prove Darwin was wrong.  Now if they could just catch you up to speed..........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're doing nothing but parroting fundamentalist dogma. You're adding a host of human attributes to some mythical snake that talked. Are you expecting anyone to take that seriously


The Irish Ram said:


> > You need to understand that science has learned a great many technologies that Darwin did not have access to.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor soul.  Indeed science has come a long way since Darwin.  Enough DNA discovery  to prove Darwin was wrong.  Now if they could just catch you up to speed..........


DNA does not prove Darwin wrong.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Carla_Danger said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



Exactly. Especially since God told mankind to "be fruitful and multiply."  "Being fruitful" has nothing to do with the types of "fruits" who CAN'T multiply.  LOL


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



They must have been hard of hearing though because we got a Fruitcake out of the mix --Hollie!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...


None of your gods said any such thing. The men who wrote the various bibles may have written that, but to suggest your gods told mankind any such thing is false.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



I find it amazing that the 66 Books of the Bible were written by over forty different men over the course of some 2,000 years yet were authored by One.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Man ... have you got THAT right!  LOL


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Okay ... take a deep breath and try to exercise your last brain cell without hurting yourself.  God would not have given His creation male and female sex organs unless it was abundantly clear that He expected them to produce offspring.  He even went so far as to point out that trees have "seed in themselves" as a means for them to reproduce.  

*Genesis 1:28*_*, "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
*_
*Genesis 1:11*_*, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."*_

See?  The Bible specifically says that God "said" it.  I believe the Bible before I would ever believe you.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Amazing only in its falsehood.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Carla_Danger said:
> ...



One of the reasons for the great flood were the "gays" who chose the flesh over God.  So, no, gays were not brought aboard.  However, I have no doubt that Noah brought aboard two orientals and two blacks.  I would say that most of the rest of the worlds races are mixtures between whites, orientals, and blacks (but that's my opinion ... the Bible doesn't specifically say).


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Based on one, itty bitty woman's personal opinion. Your finite knowledge base is but a teeny weeny speck of the amount of information there is to know.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


My knowledge base is deep enough to know that your gawds are simply reinventions of earlier gawds. As we see with the Greek gawds who were often humans with superhuman powers, the inventor of Christianity: Paul, stole that very idea for one of your gawds. He was the one assigning human attributes to your gods. They exist in a human timeline and a human paradigm. You make them angry and emotive.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 24, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Christianity is so cool. Built in reasons for hate and derision.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



1) Your knowledge of spelling is clearly limited. You misspelled "GOD" as in God Almighty.
2) Considering the fact that you can't even recognize God when He's right before your eyes proves just how limited your knowledge base really is.
3) False religions have been seeking to reinvent the real God for centuries.  Their problem is that they seek to invent a false reality (false god) to fit their personal whims instead of reinventing themselves to fit the true God and His true reality.  Even you have your false gods even if you don't call them by that term.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 24, 2014)

Hollie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



And yet you're one of the most hateful and intolerant individuals I've ever come across.  Ironic, that.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

> You're doing nothing but parroting fundamentalist dogma. You're adding a host of human attributes to some mythical snake that talked. Are you expecting anyone to take that seriously



They will if they understand enmity......
And if you did,  you would know that snakes are incapable of harboring* a deep rooted*, <long time in the making, hatred of anybody.  Catch one and see if he has a preference in biting you, or your friend, or both.  Which one of you does he really really hate more than the other.....  

Christ's adversary is Satan, not water moccasin.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 24, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....


Like the color of light if one were to observe the spectrum from one end to the other, there is no sudden and dramatic change in evolution.  There is only slow, gradual change. The line we draw to distinguish one species from another is arbitrary based on how we understand the world.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 24, 2014)

Observing the spectrum from one end to the other doesn't change the spectrum.
To have a slow, gradual change in species, DNA would have to make an error and then repeat the exact error for millions of years,  *without *self correcting, *or* making any other mistakes that would divert the first mistake.  The reason that doesn't happen is because the molecular mistake that would send the programed code in the wrong direction is replaced with a new correctly functioning molecule.  
DNA self corrects.  Which is why we remain humans and monkeys are still monkeys to this day.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 25, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Observing the spectrum from one end to the other doesn't change the spectrum.


And observing species doesn't change the species.



The Irish Ram said:


> To have a slow, gradual change in species, DNA would have to make an error and then repeat the exact error for millions of years,  *without *self correcting, *or* making any other mistakes that would divert the first mistake.  The reason that doesn't happen is because the molecular mistake that would send the programed code in the wrong direction is replaced with a new correctly functioning molecule.
> DNA self corrects.  Which is why we remain humans and monkeys are still monkeys to this day.


DNA makes errors all the time, but that isn't the only source of change. Organisums change on purpose to adapt to their environment.  That's why we have diferent human races.


----------



## Tuatara (Oct 25, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Ahhh, circular reasoning. The bible is true because god says so. God is true because the bible says so. God said this in the bible so it must be true.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 25, 2014)

Tuatara said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Circular reasoning isn't always incorrect. If I write a true statement about myself but someone questions whether or not the statement is true I can argue that I know it's true because I wrote it.  So the statement says something true about me and I say that it's true because I wrote it.  You don't have to believe it but it doesn't make the statement any less true.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 25, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Circular reasoning isn't always incorrect. If I write a true statement about myself but someone questions whether or not the statement is true I can argue that I know it's true because I wrote it.  So the statement says something true about me and I say that it's true because I wrote it.  You don't have to believe it but it doesn't make the statement any less true.


That you believe the statment doesn't make it true, either.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Observing the spectrum from one end to the other doesn't change the spectrum.
> To have a slow, gradual change in species, DNA would have to make an error and then repeat the exact error for millions of years,  *without *self correcting, *or* making any other mistakes that would divert the first mistake.  The reason that doesn't happen is because the molecular mistake that would send the programed code in the wrong direction is replaced with a new correctly functioning molecule.
> DNA self corrects.  Which is why we remain humans and monkeys are still monkeys to this day.


When you get your lessons in biology from fundamentalist Christian ministries, you're bound to post such ignorant piffle.


----------



## Taz (Oct 25, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


So if gays and lesbians weren't on the boat, how did they get here? And you're saying that Noah had Native Indians on his boat as well? Because they're not a mixture of whites, asians and/or blacks.


----------



## Taz (Oct 25, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Why, do you have any proof of who did? (If you're going to quote a book of fiction like the bible, note that you are already dismissed for lack of evidence).


----------



## Taz (Oct 25, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


"_*And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark," 
*_
"all flesh, two". Get it now?


----------



## Taz (Oct 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your story gets more convoluted with every tidbit. 
Ok, since you seem too embarrassed to just spell out your position, am I now to assume that god put all the fossilized creatures on earth, and THEN they evolved? But not into another species? So no species is the ancestor of another?


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 25, 2014)

Taz said:


> So if gays and lesbians weren't on the boat, how did they get here? And you're saying that Noah had Native Indians on his boat as well? Because they're not a mixture of whites, asians and/or blacks.


Born-homosexuality, as opposed to a sex related stress disorder, is a naturaly recuring phenominon. Remove all gays from the planet today and we will have more within a generation.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 25, 2014)

Taz said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


is it  because you can't think of a second argument that you keep repeating the one, failed one?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 25, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


it gets convoluted because you make things up about what I said and pretend I said it.......the scientific process of evolution worked the same way before the flood and after the flood.......there are fossils in the ground because creatures died before the flood, just like they did after the flood......as I have already said, we have 37k different species of beetle because of evolution, but neither beetles or humans evolved from pond sludge......these are all things I have said before......they directly contradict what you have just claimed I said......apparently, that makes you either an idiot or a liar......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


Christian fundamentalists will defend circular reasoning because so much of their argumentation depends upon it. A consistent, defendable argument has no requirement for circular, self-defeating arguments.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You YEC'ists are such a hoot. In just a few thousand years, there are 37k different types of beetles?

Did the gods somehow work overtime to magically *poof* those into existence?


----------



## Taz (Oct 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


It's ok, we're pretty much done here, you admitted that you believe in stuff without a single fucking shred of proof (and you call ME an idiot, how ironic). Proof which you don't have for this either. Total fantasy world. Have fun.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 25, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You dismissed science.  There are no Biblical quotes in what I posted.  And you dismissed it because you have no arguments against it.

Darwin thought that the building blocks of life fell from the upper atmosphere, into the ocean, then lightening struck the ocean and heated the ocean up enough to create life.   As Hollie pointed out, science has come a long way since Darwin.  Long enough to know that ultraviolet radiation would have killed any amino acids< (building blocks of life) in the upper atmosphere.

For me to converse on line, I string together letters to form words that convey a message.
DNA strings together "letters" to form "words" that convey a message.
How does DNA know which letters to string together to create life?

I had to be taught what letters form words before I could form words. I had a teacher.
Who taught DNA?


After years of trying to avoid the inevitable, physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias came to this conclusion in 1992:
"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe that was created out of nothing, one with a very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying, one might say supernatural, plan."


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


As you do with your gods: assigning them human attributes with intent, you're doing with DNA. The chemical compounds of DNA form chemical base pairs that carry the chemical compounds for replication. 

You're saying a "who" taught DNA how to string letters together. 

That's silly.


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 25, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So if gays and lesbians weren't on the boat, how did they get here? And you're saying that Noah had Native Indians on his boat as well? Because they're not a mixture of whites, asians and/or blacks.
> ...



They will be removed. There will be none in the Kingdom.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 25, 2014)

Pezz said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Circular reasoning isn't always incorrect. If I write a true statement about myself but someone questions whether or not the statement is true I can argue that I know it's true because I wrote it.  So the statement says something true about me and I say that it's true because I wrote it.  You don't have to believe it but it doesn't make the statement any less true.
> ...



But I wouldn't believe it unless it was.  But that's must me.


----------



## DriftingSand (Oct 25, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So if gays and lesbians weren't on the boat, how did they get here? And you're saying that Noah had Native Indians on his boat as well? Because they're not a mixture of whites, asians and/or blacks.
> ...



Manson was "born murderer." Harvey Milk was "born pedophile." Jim Jones was "born false prophet." Josef Stalin was "born tyrant."  We're all "born" with sin nature.  It's our job to overcome and repent of our sins.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 25, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


so let me see if I have this straight......I admit I believe in stuff that cannot be proven, you deny believing in stuff that cannot be proven, but believe it HAS been proven when it hasn't, and you think that I am the idiot?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 25, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



inaccurate.....I see no reason to assume it took thousands of years......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 25, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Magical gawds make everything so simple.


----------



## Taz (Oct 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I never said anything was proven. The primordial soup thing is the leading THEORY. I also think that it's possible that life may have arrived on asteroids... But I see zero proof for everything being poofed into existence because I don't live in a fantasy world like you do. I prefer a reality based life, to living in a dreamworld.


----------



## Taz (Oct 26, 2014)

So I guess nobody knows how we got all the asians, blacks, pigmies... from the 8 people who were on the Ark. Got it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


don't blame God for making you simple.......it was just random chance......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 26, 2014)

Taz said:


> So I guess nobody knows how we got all the asians, blacks, pigmies... from the 8 people who were on the Ark. Got it.


short term memory problems?........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Oh my. You self-hating YEC'ists do have this need to invoke your gods as agents of your self-hate.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess nobody knows how we got all the asians, blacks, pigmies... from the 8 people who were on the Ark. Got it.
> ...



Ark tales and fables problems.


----------



## Taz (Oct 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess nobody knows how we got all the asians, blacks, pigmies... from the 8 people who were on the Ark. Got it.
> ...


You have nothing, Mr Fantasyland.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 26, 2014)

Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.

Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is  an impossibility.  He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology:
"An honest man, armed with the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get in going"

AND,  this is how badly they want you to believe it anyway.  This is what George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate had to say about spontaneous generation:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneity generation of a living organism* is impossible.*  Yet here we are-- as a result, I believe of spontaneous generation.  

Wald went on to explain his ridiculous statement:
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only 2 possibilities: Creation, or spontaneous generation.  There is no third way.
Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. WE  CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS; THEREFORE, WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE: THAT LIFE AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE. 

Science knows better, they just don't want you to know better.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 26, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
> In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.
> 
> Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is  an impossibility.  He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.
> ...



that's not fair...all it takes is mud and lightning.......it happens every time we have a thunderstorm, right?.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
> ...


Yours is an impossibly stupid understanding of early earth history or the biological sciences. However, as you attempt to defend your YEC'ist views of a 6,000 year old earth, absurdities that only religious fundamentalists can accept are your only choices.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 26, 2014)

It's not my understanding Hollie, it's SCIENCE!


----------



## the_human_being (Oct 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."  Sounds like someone knew you even before you were knit in your mother's womb.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
> In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.
> 
> Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is  an impossibility.  He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.
> ...


I'm afraid you're just another dishonest fundamentalist hack.

It's unfortunate that you alleged Christians are so intent on trying to force your beliefs on others that you don't care a whit about honesty, integrity or facts.

Your phony "quote" referencing Francis Crick is a staple among the worst of the lies and falsehoods that are maintained by christian charlatans and fundie creation ministries.

So congratulations. You have chosen to be an accomplice to fraud, so you're as much a liar and a fraud as the fundie creation ministries you promote with your fraud.


The Irish Ram said:


> Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
> In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.
> 
> Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is  an impossibility.  He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.
> ...




Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous 

*Quote #74*

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth _may_ have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might _seem_ like a miracle. But he _specifically_ admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret​


----------



## Hollie (Oct 26, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing.   Primordial soup never existed.  There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
> In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.
> 
> Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is  an impossibility.  He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.
> ...



Hey,good for you Irish Ram. You're phony "quote" of Wald's work is yet another fraud and a lie.

You're two for two. You should be so proud.

Your "quote" is one I recognized immediately as another fraud perpetrated by Christian extremists.

Quote Mine Project Assorted Quotes

*Mars Hill Ministry: The Origin of Life --The "Hardware"; The Journey: Spontaneous Generation; and True News: The Origin of Life - Evolution’s Dilemma.*

It should first be noted that, while Wald uses the term "spontaneous generation" throughout the article, he is not really concerned with the historic notion "that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds" that was shown to be untenable by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur. Although he gives an account of Redi's, Spallanzani's and Pasteur's work, his real concern is "how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions [than exist in the present] in some former period, granted that they do so no longer." In short, he is speaking about what we would now call "abiogenesis."


The source of the above quote is an article Wald wrote, entitled "The Origin of Life," that appeared in the August 1954 issue of Scientific American (vol. 191), on pages 44-53. This is the same article that was ultimately the source of  Quote Mine #57.


As was the case with Quote Mine # 57, the creationists have frequently mangled the citation in passing around the quote. The "Journey" site above gives the source as "George Wald, 'The Origin of Life,' Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954" as does The Triunity Report: The Origin of Life and The Suppression of Truth. Another site, Adventist Review: The Simple Cell?, gives it as "Scientific American, May 1954." The latter site goes on to merge this quote mine with a variation on Quote Mine #57, which itself was a paraphrase of what Wald said that bore little resemblance to his actual point, thus creating a true paragon of misinformation.


Unlike Quote Mine #57, however, the actual words attributed to Wald do appear in his article, on page 46. Immediately following on the two sentences above is a third that, together, form a complete paragraph that reads:

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by "impossible." [Emphasis added.]
Wald then goes on to discuss probability, beginning with the simple-to-calculate cases of coin tosses and dice, where the possible number of outcomes are known. He continues:

When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it must be determined by counting the fraction of successes in a large number of trials.
Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible or certain derives from our experience: the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous origin of life to be "impossible." It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.

We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession; For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance.

Wald then discusses the fact that highly improbable things can happen but that, as a result of the skeptical attitude of persons of good judgment, "events which are merely very extraordinary acquire the reputation of never having occurred at all." But Wald calls scientists the "[l]east skeptical" of all "judicious persons" because "cautious as they are, [they] know very well what strange things are possible." Wald's example for this, the possibility that a table will spontaneously rise into the air if "the molecules of which the table is composed, ordinarily in random motion in all directions, should happen by chance to move in the same direction," neatly anticipates Fred Hoyle's "Tornado in a Junkyard" argument. Therefore, according to Wald, "it does not mean much to say that a very improbable event has never been observed."

More importantly, though:
When we consider the spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need happen again and again. It is perhaps enough for it to happen once. The probability with which we: are concerned is of a special kind; it is the probability that an event occur at least once. To this type of probability a fundamentally important thing happens as one increases the number of trials. However improbable the event in a single trial, it becomes increasingly probable as the trials are multiplied. Eventually the event becomes virtually inevitable.


Wald gives the following example:
Consider a reasonably improbable event, the chance of which is 1/1,000. The chance that this will not occur in one trial is 999/1,000. The chance that it won't occur in 1,000 trials is 999/1,000 multiplied together 1,000 times. This fraction comes out to be 37/100. The chance that it will happen at least once in 1,000 trials is therefore one minus this number -- 63/100 -- a little better than three chances out of five. One thousand trials have transformed this from a highly improbable to a highly probable event. In 10,000 trials the chance that this event will occur at least once comes out to be 19,999/20,000. It is now almost inevitable.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

It is now clear why the quote miners omitted the sentence following the snippet they appropriated. Including it might have tipped off the people the quote is intended to impress that they are being mislead. And if they went and actually looked at the article, they would find that Wald was not saying that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible but was, instead, engaged in a bit of rhetorical flourish, leading up to his conclusion that:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.
In short, Wald's conclusion in the article is diametrically opposed to the spin the creationists want to put on it. Wald is not, as the creationists would have you believe, arguing for a naturalistic view[1] _despite_ the "evidence" of the supposed great improbability of life arising naturally, he is arguing that there is no such "evidence." Wald's point is, first of all, that the probability of abiogenesis happening is impossible to calculate. But beyond that, the very nature of the problem suggests the likelihood that abiogenesis did happen, here on Earth or somewhere in the universe.
Creationists are free to dispute Wald's arguments or his conclusions, of course. In fact, he accepts, based on the evidence available in 1954, that there was some 2 billion years between the point that conditions on Earth made life possible and its first appearance.  Evidence discovered in the 50 years that have passed since Wald's article suggests that liquid water first appeared on the Earth about 4.4 billion years ago, while the earliest fossils found are dated at 3.5 billion years ago and the earliest (though disputed) signs of life date to 3.8 billion years ago. It is not immediately obvious that 700 million years or so is insufficient for Wald's argument to be valid.​


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 26, 2014)

Hollie said:


> your YEC'ist views.


you know they aren't mine.....must be yours.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > your YEC'ist views.
> ...


Embrace your YEC'ism. Embrace your ignorance.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

I love the way you keep demonstrating yours.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> I love the way you keep demonstrating yours.....


Not at all, actually. I'm fully supportive of the methods of science. Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic fundie / YEC'ist, I would expect you to actually have a valid alternative to propose as a counter to natural processes, which (of course) You YEC'ists do not. YEC'ism has always consisted primarily of arguments against science rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > I love the way you keep demonstrating yours.....
> ...


???.....Hollie, you haven't actually read any of my arguments since June.....if you had you would realize why you're wasting everyone's time.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You haven't offered any arguments. Your comments consist of goofy one-liners that clutter threads with spam.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

And yet there are my quotes right in your quotes.  lol.
Crick made up a  new cause since he *knew* life did not come from earth soup.  Directed Panspermia.  Hurry and look it up Hollie so I can shoot it down with modern physics.

And again, Here is Hoyle on metaphysics:
"I don't know how long it is going to  be before astronomers generally recognize that the combinatorial arrangement of* not even one  *among the many thousands of bio polymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on earth.  They are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles.  They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law that performs miracles.  
This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations of Biblical miracles."

From their book, Evolution From Space, Hoyle and Wickramasinge address the problem of the origin of the information in a DNA molecule:
"From the beginning of this book we have emphasized the enormous information content of even the simplest living systems.  The information cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes, as for instance through meteorological and chemical processes occurring at the surface of a lifeless planet. As well as a  suitable  physical and chemical environment, a large initial store of information was also needed for the origin of life.  We have argued that the requisite information came from an intelligence."


Got soup?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> And yet there are my quotes right in your quotes.  lol.
> Crick made up a  new cause since he *knew* life did not come from earth soup.  Directed Panspermia.  Hurry and look it up Hollie so I can shoot it down with modern physics.
> 
> And again, Here is Hoyle on metaphysics:
> ...



How did it feel to be exposed as a fraud?

Let me guess. You don't care. You cut and paste edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" but as long as your dishonesty is perpetrated in support of your religion, lies and fraud are acceptable.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

I don't know you'll have to ask Crick!  Even if "Directed Panspermia" existed, it still doesn't explain where the information in DNA anywhere in the universe came from.

He didn't have soup.  Do you still have soup Hollie?  Give some to Crick.........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I don't know you'll have to ask Crick!  Even if "Directed Panspermia" existed, it still doesn't explain where the information in DNA anywhere in the universe came from.
> 
> He didn't have soup.  Do you still have soup Hollie?  Give some to Crick.........


How sad for you. You lie and you perpetrate a fraud and it's all fun and games. 

What a shame you never learned the values of honesty and integrity.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

And what a shame that you never offer one bit of information to prove your belief in pond scum.  Does taking pot shots explain the right and left phenomenon of amino acids, and who made them right or left, or how they know which they are and where they should attach to DNA?  You can't even provide one shred of evidence that primordial soup even existed.    Calling me a liar instead of answering the questions, shows you lack the intelligence to debate the issue. 
(Maybe the answer is in the Qur'an). 

How sad for you to be so ignorant of physics and the Qur'an that you can't do anything but throw stones, and even then you miss.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> And what a shame that you never offer one bit of information to prove your belief in pond scum.  Does taking pot shots explain the right and left phenomenon of amino acids, and who made them right or left, or how they know which they are and where they should attach to DNA?  You can't even provide one shred of evidence that primordial soup even existed.    Calling me a liar instead of answering the questions, shows you lack the intelligence to debate the issue.
> Maybe the answer is in the Qur'an.
> 
> How sad for you to be so ignorant of physics and the Qur'an that you can't do anything but throw stones, and even then you miss.


I understand you're angry about being identified as a fraud and a liar. But cheer up. You believe your religion has a built-in allowance for fraud and lies. Be thankful you're a Christian and can use use fraud and lies to sell your beliefs


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

Hey Hollie, How does an amino acid know if it is right handed or left handed? 
Ask the opposition  a question they don't have the knowledge to answer.  Now that's how you throw a punch!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hey Hollie, How does an amino acid know if it is right handed or left handed?
> Ask the opposition  a question they don't have the knowledge to answer.  Now that's how you throw a punch!


Hey lying fraud. How does a dishonest fraud expect to be taken seriously when they post edited, parsed and fraudulent "quotes" as you did?

I'm afraid you're just another dishonest fundamentalist hack.

It's unfortunate that you alleged Christians are so intent on trying to force your beliefs on others that you don't care a whit about honesty, integrity or facts.

Your phony "quote" referencing Francis Crick is a staple among the worst of the lies and falsehoods that are maintained by christian charlatans and fundie creation ministries.

So congratulations. You have chosen to be an accomplice to fraud, so you're as much a liar and a fraud as the fundie creation ministries you promote with your fraud.

You fraudulently cut and pasted:
↑
"Actually, if you believe in soup, you've got nothing. Primordial soup never existed. There is 0 proof of your magic soup.
In fact, the odds of even one little bacterium being produced in primordial soup are greater than you and your entire extended family winning the lottery every week, for 1 million years.

Mathematician Hoyle a strict materialist, did the math. Mathematicians agree that if the likely hood of an event reaches 10 to the 50th power, it is an impossibility. He calculated the probably of life originating in soup at 10 to the 40,000 power.

Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology:
"An honest man, armed with the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get in going"

AND, this is how badly they want you to believe it anyway. This is what George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate had to say about spontaneous generation:

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneity generation of a living organism* is impossible.* Yet here we are-- as a result, I believe of spontaneous generation. 

Wald went on to explain his ridiculous statement:
"When it comes to the origin of life there are only 2 possibilities: Creation, or spontaneous generation. There is no third way.
Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THAT ON PHILOSOPHICAL GROUNDS; THEREFORE, WE CHOOSE TO BELIEVE THE IMPOSSIBLE: THAT LIFE AROSE SPONTANEOUSLY BY CHANCE. 

Science knows better, they just don't want you to know better.
Click to expand..."


Wherein I showed that you fraudulently and dishonestly edited out the majority of Crick's comment to further your fundie agenda of lies and deceit.

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous 

*Quote #74*

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":
" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth _may_ have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might _seem_ like a miracle. But he _specifically_ admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

Hey Hollie, How do amino acids know if they are right handed or left handed?  Cut an paste me an answer.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hey Hollie, How do amino acids know if they are right handed or left handed?  Cut an paste me an answer.


Why are you so dishonest? Did you think your falsified "quotes" would go unnoticed?

Did you learn your tactics of fraud and dishonesty at your _Church of The Dishonest Fundie Hack_?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

amino acids.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> amino acids.


And you're such a liar and fraud, you're hoping to now spam the thread in an effort to conceal your lies and fraud.

Did you forget your other lies and fraud are just as toxic as your fraudulent editing of the Francis Crick "quote"?

I suppose the lesson learned is that you cannot be trusted to be either honest or display any personal integrity.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

I didn't post every thing Crick has ever said but you did me the favor:


> Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth* may *have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book,* he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are,* themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how,* in the absence of evidence,* the appearance of life on Earth might _seem_ like a miracle.



The problem for both you and Crick is, on *any* planet, how do amino acids know that they are right or left handed, regardless of whatever alien planet they *may* have originated? And how did they get here considering that ultraviolet light would have killed them before they arrived.  Grasping at straws is not evidence.  

Having no credible evidence, and absolutely no idea how DNA was programed, we get things like, *maybe aliens did it.*
The lesson learned is that you have no answers.  But at least Crick has given up on primordial soup in favor of aliens.
So Hollie, Crick knows your soup theory is bust.  Catch up to science stalker girl, or find someone to stalk that is as dumb as you are.


Hollie's Folly:


> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.



I know, Aliens built the ark!


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

Hollie, I understand that aliens are on there way with some brain cells  they cooked up just for you in Martian mud puddles.  Let me know when they get here so you can answer the question:
How do amino acids know if they are right handed or left handed?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I didn't post every thing Crick has ever said but you did me the favor:
> 
> 
> > Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth* may *have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book,* he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are,* themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how,* in the absence of evidence,* the appearance of life on Earth might _seem_ like a miracle.
> ...


Hey fraudster. The problem is that your dishonesty as part of your attempt to carelessly and fraudulently edit, parse and conceal the true intent of Francis Crick reflects on your personal integrity and credibility.

Shall we examine in greater detail your truly epic attempt to lie and cheat your way through your edited, parsed and deceitful "quote" that accompanied your Francis Crick fraud?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

Apparently you missed the, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, part.  Aliens seem to be the only answer science can come up with.  That alien is God. 
You got nothing but stones to throw.  Amino acids know if they are right handed or left, the ark* is *in the Qur'an, and aliens stole your brain to see why it failed to evolve.

Which brings me to this point.  It is a balmy 70 degrees here today, and I have the option of riding a horse, or listening to a horse's ass.  I choose the former since I have a brain and already know the answer to:
Who programed amino acids to be right or left, and how do the know which they are? 

You keep up with the blah blah blah fundie thing, and I'll go do the National Velvet thing, and I'll be back tonight to check on your progress....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Apparently you missed the, IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, part.  Aliens seem to be the only answer science can come up with.  That alien is God.
> You got nothing but stones to throw.  Amino acids know if they are right handed or left, the ark* is *in the Qur'an, and aliens stole your brain to see why it failed to evolve.
> 
> Which brings me to this point.  It is a balmy 70 degrees here today, and I have the option of riding a horse, or listening to a horse's ass.  I choose the former since I have a brain and already know the answer to:
> ...



Do take some time to consider your actions. I would suggest you try to critically assess your need to lie and deceive in an effort to promote your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

If your religion can only be supported by lies and fraud, isn't it time for a new religion?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

Like the Qur'an?

Hollie's Folly:
The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.

Hey Hollie, aliens ate your baby.......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Like the Qur'an?
> 
> Hollie's Folly:
> 
> ...


Hey Ram. Your childish tantrums won't hide your lies and fraud. Still hoping to sidestep any accounting of your dishonesty, I see. That's not surprising as so much of the nonsense you cut and paste from fundie christian ministries is fraud.

And no, your holy text of the Koran only references the Noah tale and fable. So once, again, you're a fraud.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

> Hollie's Folly:
> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Hollie's Folly:
> > The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.


It's true. 

Your holy text of the Koran has no inventions of Arks and talking snakes.

I see you're still unwilling to admit to your obvious fraud and lies regarding the phony "quotes" you stole from your creation ministries. 

I suppose you don't see fraud and lies as necessarily corrupt and immoral when performed in furtherance of your extremist beliefs.

Such are the dangers of cults.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

> Hollie's Folly:
> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

I though we might revisit the post wherein you hoped to perpetrate your first fraud and then we'll move on to the second. From there, we can review your attempt at fraud with the Fred Hoyle "quote" that makes its rounds among your extremist creation ministries.

So then, let's review the first of your frauds and bald faced lies, shall we?

You "quoted":



> Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in Biology:
> "An honest man, armed with the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get in going"




To which I responded:

I'm afraid you're just another dishonest fundamentalist hack.
It's unfortunate that you alleged Christians are so intent on trying to force your beliefs on others that you don't care a whit about honesty, integrity or facts.

Your phony "quote" referencing Francis Crick is a staple among the worst of the lies and falsehoods that are maintained by christian charlatans and fundie creation ministries.

So congratulations. You have chosen to be an accomplice to fraud, so you're as much a liar and a fraud as the fundie creation ministries you promote with your fraud.

From there, I hoped to educate you regarding what lies are and why lies are wrong. I gave you the complete "quote" from Francis Crick that included the material you chose to edit, parse and delete in the perpetration of your fraud and your lies:

Quote Mine Project Miscellaneous 

*Quote #74*

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

Again there is an unmarked deletion, this time at the end, following right after "miracle,":


" . . . so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against."

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth _may_ have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might _seem_ like a miracle. But he _specifically_ admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence. Leaving out that part of it, by cutting off what immediately follows, is deeply dishonest.

- J. (catshark) Pieret


Wow. How about that. Your phony, edited, parsed and altered "quote" was entirely different that what Crick had intended to convey.

In terms of degree, how dishonest, deceitful and, well, sleazy is it that you purposefully edited, parsed and altered the comments in order to promote your extremist beliefs?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

As you pointed out in Hollie's Folly, my religion is the other one....  


As for your comment below, on your perfected Qur'an mentioning Noah in passing: 



> And no, your holy text of the Koran only references the Noah tale and fable.


You are wrong yet again:

*The Story of Noah’s Ark in the Holy Qur’an*








A Mughal miniature of Noah’s Ark in the collection of the Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Prophets are the messengers of Allah who came from time to time to guide mankind to the way of Allah, the path of righteousness. Amongst the many who came as guides and warners to the people, Prophet Noah (_Alaihisalam_) *[1] *was one of them. He lived long before the time of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (_Salallahu alaihi wasalam_), the last of the prophets. *[2]*

God appointed Noah as the prophet for his people, so as to guide them to the right path and turn them away from their evil ways. The Holy Qur’an tells us the story of Prophet Noah and his people in a number of _suras _*[3]*, namely _sura_ 57 (_Nuh_), s_ura_ 11 (_Hud_), and _sura_ 23 (_al-Mu’minun)_, and many _ayats_* [4]* therein. It tells us of the strong faith which the Prophet had in Almighty God and about the final destruction of those who ignored the Divine Message.

Commanding Prophet Noah to warn his people, God said:

“Warn your people before there comes upon them a grievous penalty.” — Holy Qur’an, 57:61

Obeying the command of God, Prophet Noah went to his people and said:

“I have come to you with a clear warning that you worship none but God. Verily I fear for you the penalty of a grievous day.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:25-26

The chiefs fearing they would lose their power and authority over the people they ruled, did not approve of what Prophet Noah was preaching and sought to detract the people from the True Path. They argued with the Prophet saying:

“We see nothing special in you except as a man like ourselves. Nor do we see any who have followed you but those who are the meanest amongst us and immature in judgment. Nor do we see in you any excellence over us; in fact we think you are a liar.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:27

Prophet Noah was not perturbed by their derogatory remarks and continued his divine mission purposefully. He called upon his people in a very polite and loving manner to mend their ways. He also warned them of the grievous consequences which would follow if they continued to worship the false gods and lead an immoral life. Assuring them that he was not seeking any wealth or power or favours from them, he said:

“And O my people! I ask you for no wealth in return: my reward is from none but God.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:29

But the chiefs continued to hinder Prophet Noah in his mission by instigating doubts about Noah. They would say to the people:

“He is no more than a man like yourselves. His wish is to assert superiority over you. If God had wished (to send messengers), He could have sent down Angels. Never did we hear such a thing (as he says), among our ancestors of old.” — Holy Qur’an, 23:24. *[5]*

The chiefs would then turn in anger towards the Prophet and challenge him arrogantly:

“O Noah! Indeed you have disputed with us and you have prolonged the dispute: now bring upon us what you have threatened us with, if you are of the Truthful Ones.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:32

Prophet Noah would then remind them that it was not in his but God’s power to punish them for their evil ways.

“Truly God will bring it on you if He wills, — and then, you will not be able to frustrate it.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:33

But all his warnings, his good advices and counsels seemed to fall on deaf ears. Except for a very few who had followed his guidance, others continued to worship the idols of stone with different names as attested in the following verse:

“And they have said (to each other) ‘Abandon not your gods: abandon neither _Wadd_ nor _Suwa_, neither _Yaguth_ nor _Yauq_, nor _Nasr_.” — Holy Qur’an, 71:23

Prophet Noah re-doubled his efforts but all to no avail. He would then cry out to his Lord:

“O my Lord! I have called to my people by night and by day, but my call only (increases their) flight (from the True Path). And every time I have called to them, that You may forgive them, they have thrust their fingers into their ears, covered themselves up with their garments, grown obstinate and given themselves up to arrogance. So, I have called to them aloud: further I have spoken to them in public and secretly in private.” — Holy Qur’an, 71:5-9

As the people became more obstinate and refused to accept God’s message accusing Prophet Noah of falsehood, God decided to bring down His punishment upon the unbelievers. To Prophet Noah, God commanded:

“Construct the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance. Then when comes Our command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take on board pairs of every species, male and female, and your people except those of them against whom the Word has already been issued: and address Me not in respect of those who are unjust; for verily they shall be drowned (in the flood).” — Holy Qur’an, 23:27




Miniature from Hafiz-i Abru’s Majma al-tawarikh. “Noah’s Ark”, Herat 1425. Leaf: 42.3 × 32.6 cm. The scene on the stormy sea is quite dramatic, with the fluttering sail, the ark breaking out of the picture frame, and the swollen bodies. The animals that are to populate the earth are rendered both humorously and fairly realistically. Photo: The David Collection, Denmark.

As commanded, Prophet Noah now set upon the task of building the Ark with the help of the small group of believers. The sight of Prophet Noah and his men constructing the Ark seemed to amuse the chiefs and unbelievers. They did not realise the seriousness of the situation but only laughed and jeered.

“Whenever the chiefs of his people passed by him, they mocked at him…” — Holy Qur’an, 11:38

Prophet Noah would now answer back to their mocking comments in a very bold and straight-forward manner:

“…If you ridicule us now, verily we too shall mock at you, even as you mock (at us). But soon will you know who it is on whom will descend a penalty which will cover them with shame and upon whom will fall a lasting penalty.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:38-39

When the Ark was completed, Prophet Noah took with him his family and the believers, and a pair of every creature that was found on the land around him. Now God’s warning to the people that He would send floods upon them came to pass.

“At length, behold! there came our Command, and the fountains of the earth gushed forth.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:40

The flood waters began to rise. Believers who had so far suffered at the hands of the chiefs and idol worshippers found themselves safe in Noah’s Ark. They offered their prayers and prostration to Almighty God as thanksgiving for the Mercy He had bestowed upon them. The unbelievers who had ignored God’s guidance were in a grievous state. All was lost to them. The heavy downpour of rain, the strong winds, the deafening thunder and the blinding lightning created confusion in their minds and fear in their hearts. They ran helter-skelter in search for safety. They climbed the roof-tops and the trees but nothing could save them now as the waters rose higher and higher.

Amongst the unbelievers was Prophet Noah’s own son, and he too was desperately trying to save himself from the flood waters. Prophet Noah’s Ark with all aboard was sailing safely on the waters and just when the Prophet saw his son he called out to him and said:

‘O my son! embark with us and be not with the unbelievers’. The son replied: ‘I will betake myself to some mountain, it will save me from the flood’. And Noah said: ‘This day nothing can save you from what God has decreed, for only those on whom He has Mercy will be saved’. And the waves came between them and the son was among the drowned ones.” — Holy Qur’an, 11:42-43

Finally, when all the unbelievers were drowned in the flood, God commanded:

“O Earth! swallow up your water, and O Sky! withhold your rain! and the water abated and the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi.” *[6]* — Holy Qur’an, 11:44
As the ark rested on Mount Judi, Prophet Noah prayed:

“O my Lord! enable me to disembark with Your Blessings, for You are the Best of all to enable us to disembark.”
_
It appears your holy perfected book covers it all pretty well, with pictures and everything!
_


> _Hollie's Folly:
> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man._


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

That was quite the promotion of your adopted religion.

However, discuss for us your lies and deceit in connection with your fraudulent editing, parsing and deletion of much of what Francis Crick wrote. 

What do you believe is gained by lies and deceit?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

Hollie said:


> That was quite the promotion of your adopted religion.
> 
> However, discuss for us your lies and deceit in connection with your fraudulent editing, parsing and deletion of much of what Francis Crick wrote.
> 
> What do you believe is gained by lies and deceit?



Are you kidding me?  How many people belong to the Christian church?  And you ask what is to be gained???  $$$ sister!

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is historically inaccurate, factually incorrect, inconsistent and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reﬂections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

_“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” _- Ken Ham


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

I thought your proselyting on behalf of your newly found religion of Islam was meaningful to you. Could that be why you went to such lengths to disparage Christianity?

  Anyway, let's review your second bald faced lie as you edited, purged and parsed entire volumes of what was written by Wald in your attempt to denigrate both a scientist and the religion of Christianity that you have abandoned in favor of Islam.

Your lied, as follows:



> AND, this is how badly they want you to believe it anyway. This is what George Wald, Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate had to say about spontaneous generation:
> 
> "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneity generation of a living organism* is impossible.* Yet here we are-- as a result, I believe of spontaneous generation.
> 
> ...




In response to your lies, deletions and fraud, I responded:


Quote Mine Project Assorted Quotes

*Mars Hill Ministry: The Origin of Life --The "Hardware"; The Journey: Spontaneous Generation; and True News: The Origin of Life - Evolution’s Dilemma.*

It should first be noted that, while Wald uses the term "spontaneous generation" throughout the article, he is not really concerned with the historic notion "that life arises regularly from the nonliving: worms from mud, maggots from decaying meat, mice from refuse of various kinds" that was shown to be untenable by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur. Although he gives an account of Redi's, Spallanzani's and Pasteur's work, his real concern is "how organisms may have arisen spontaneously under different conditions [than exist in the present] in some former period, granted that they do so no longer." In short, he is speaking about what we would now call "abiogenesis."


The source of the above quote is an article Wald wrote, entitled "The Origin of Life," that appeared in the August 1954 issue of Scientific American (vol. 191), on pages 44-53. This is the same article that was ultimately the source of  Quote Mine #57.


As was the case with Quote Mine # 57, the creationists have frequently mangled the citation in passing around the quote. The "Journey" site above gives the source as "George Wald, 'The Origin of Life,' Scientific American, 191:48, May 1954" as does The Triunity Report: The Origin of Life and The Suppression of Truth. Another site, Adventist Review: The Simple Cell?, gives it as "Scientific American, May 1954." The latter site goes on to merge this quote mine with a variation on Quote Mine #57, which itself was a paraphrase of what Wald said that bore little resemblance to his actual point, thus creating a true paragon of misinformation.


Unlike Quote Mine #57, however, the actual words attributed to Wald do appear in his article, on page 46. Immediately following on the two sentences above is a third that, together, form a complete paragraph that reads:

One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by "impossible." [Emphasis added.]
Wald then goes on to discuss probability, beginning with the simple-to-calculate cases of coin tosses and dice, where the possible number of outcomes are known. He continues:

When one has no means of estimating the probability beforehand, it must be determined by counting the fraction of successes in a large number of trials.
Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible or certain derives from our experience: the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous origin of life to be "impossible." It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.

We shall see that this is not a very meaningful concession; For one thing, the time with which our problem is concerned is geological time, and the whole extent of human history is trivial in the balance.

Wald then discusses the fact that highly improbable things can happen but that, as a result of the skeptical attitude of persons of good judgment, "events which are merely very extraordinary acquire the reputation of never having occurred at all." But Wald calls scientists the "[l]east skeptical" of all "judicious persons" because "cautious as they are, [they] know very well what strange things are possible." Wald's example for this, the possibility that a table will spontaneously rise into the air if "the molecules of which the table is composed, ordinarily in random motion in all directions, should happen by chance to move in the same direction," neatly anticipates Fred Hoyle's "Tornado in a Junkyard" argument. Therefore, according to Wald, "it does not mean much to say that a very improbable event has never been observed."

More importantly, though:
When we consider the spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need happen again and again. It is perhaps enough for it to happen once. The probability with which we: are concerned is of a special kind; it is the probability that an event occur at least once. To this type of probability a fundamentally important thing happens as one increases the number of trials. However improbable the event in a single trial, it becomes increasingly probable as the trials are multiplied. Eventually the event becomes virtually inevitable.


Wald gives the following example:
Consider a reasonably improbable event, the chance of which is 1/1,000. The chance that this will not occur in one trial is 999/1,000. The chance that it won't occur in 1,000 trials is 999/1,000 multiplied together 1,000 times. This fraction comes out to be 37/100. The chance that it will happen at least once in 1,000 trials is therefore one minus this number -- 63/100 -- a little better than three chances out of five. One thousand trials have transformed this from a highly improbable to a highly probable event. In 10,000 trials the chance that this event will occur at least once comes out to be 19,999/20,000. It is now almost inevitable.

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

It is now clear why the quote miners omitted the sentence following the snippet they appropriated. Including it might have tipped off the people the quote is intended to impress that they are being mislead. And if they went and actually looked at the article, they would find that Wald was not saying that a naturalistic origin of life is impossible but was, instead, engaged in a bit of rhetorical flourish, leading up to his conclusion that:

The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for life as we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be enough.
In short, Wald's conclusion in the article is diametrically opposed to the spin the creationists want to put on it. Wald is not, as the creationists would have you believe, arguing for a naturalistic view[1] _despite_ the "evidence" of the supposed great improbability of life arising naturally, he is arguing that there is no such "evidence." Wald's point is, first of all, that the probability of abiogenesis happening is impossible to calculate. But beyond that, the very nature of the problem suggests the likelihood that abiogenesis did happen, here on Earth or somewhere in the universe.

 Creationists are free to dispute Wald's arguments or his conclusions, of course. In fact, he accepts, based on the evidence available in 1954, that there was some 2 billion years between the point that conditions on Earth made life possible and its first appearance.  Evidence discovered in the 50 years that have passed since Wald's article suggests that liquid water first appeared on the Earth about 4.4 billion years ago, while the earliest fossils found are dated at 3.5 billion years ago and the earliest (though disputed) signs of life date to 3.8 billion years ago. It is not immediately obvious that 700 million years or so is insufficient for Wald's argument to be valid.


----------



## hjmick (Oct 27, 2014)




----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

Hollie said:


> That was quite the promotion of your adopted religion.
> 
> However, discuss for us your lies and deceit in connection with your fraudulent editing, parsing and deletion of much of what Francis Crick wrote.
> 
> What do you believe is gained by lies and deceit?



Islam is just an arab spin off of Christianity just like Christianity is a spin off of the Jewish faith. 

Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.  

And we need to realize that for almost 2000 years we did the same thing.  We gave non Christians 3 choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

> Hollie's Folly:
> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of *your corrupted religion,* we must dismiss *the bible*s as flawed inventions of man.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Hollie's Folly:
> > The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of *your corrupted religion,* we must dismiss *the bible*s as flawed inventions of man.



I heard a lot of Americans are becoming Muslims because it is easy to understand, isn't racist like Christianity is and I can't remember the 3rd reason.  What is the Muslim story?  The elevator pitch please.  The short version.  I know the stupid Christian schtick.  What's yours?  Maybe it makes more sense.  I really don't know what it is.  Maybe I'll convert once I hear it.  

And I don't really know the Jewish Schtick either.  One Jewish guy told me that if a non Jew wants to convert his first goal is to try and talk them out of it and if they can't, find another Jew who can.  In other words they really don't care if you become a member.  LOL.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Hollie's Folly:
> > The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of *your corrupted religion,* we must dismiss *the bible*s as flawed inventions of man.



Still no explanation for your lies and deceit?

What a shame. I would have thought you might want to display a bit of honesty and personal integrity. 

Obviously not.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 27, 2014)

> Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> And we need to realize that for almost 2000 years we did the same thing.  We gave non Christians 3 choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.



Your Muslim friend is out of touch Sealy.  And did is past tense.  You meant do:
ISIS tells Christians in Iraq to convert pay tax or die Asia News - India Today




> _Hollie's Folly:
> The Koran had no such tales and fables of Arks. Because the Koran usus the perfection of your corrupted religion, we must dismiss the bibles as flawed inventions of man._


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> > And we need to realize that for almost 2000 years we did the same thing.  We gave non Christians 3 choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.
> 
> 
> ...



I said Muslim Americans.  The Muslims in Iraq are about 1000 years behind us.  They're think they are still fighting holy wars.

Do you see what the idea of god does to people?  ISIS is a great example of why you guys need to let this shit go.  Grow up or evolve!


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> > And we need to realize that for almost 2000 years we did the same thing.  We gave non Christians 3 choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.
> 
> 
> ...


Poor ram.

You're reduced to cutting and pasting the same childish nonsense as you desperately sidestep any accounting for your lies, falsehoods and dishonesty.

What a shame that your dishonesty apparently comes from your religious extremism and those fundamentalist views.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> > Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> > And we need to realize that for almost 2000 years we did the same thing.  We gave non Christians 3 choices.  Leave, Convert or Die.
> 
> 
> ...



And why would you look at it like it is him who is out of touch and not ISIS?  You must be a stupid ignorant Christian.  Just remember it was the 1700's and you guys were burning witches.  So Muslims in the middle east are only about 300 years behind us.  

And I would guess more likely they hate us because of our political policies and not our religion.  Stop persecuting them and stealing their oil and maybe they won't hate us so much.

Ever go to Turkey?  Of course you have not you ignorant American.  They are Muslims and they won't chop off your head.  Or in Iran.  They are backward too.  Why?  Because they are overly religious!  The day they let that shit go is the day they wake up.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 27, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> ...



Close minded too.  This reminds me of the idiots who no matter how much we tried to explain to them why atheism isn't a religion, they just refused to even listen to any of our arguments.  Was I surprised?  Nope.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > Oh, and I asked my Muslim friend about how the Koran says either infidels convert or die.  He said that was back when we were waring with each other.  I agree with him.  I don't think MOST Muslims today in America think we either need to convert or die.
> ...



With rammers long cut and paste extolling the koran's co-option of earlier tales and fables, ramie's conversion to Islam seems complete.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> amino acids.


you shouldn't challenge her faith, she may go all jihad on you......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, I understand that aliens are on there way with some brain cells  they cooked up just for you in Martian mud puddles.  Let me know when they get here so you can answer the question:
> How do amino acids know if they are right handed or left handed?


if you look at amino acids in Australia are the right handed amino acids left handed?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > That was quite the promotion of your adopted religion.
> ...


actually, I'm a member of a Christian church and no one has given ME any $$$.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 27, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > > Hollie's Folly:
> ...


]
lol, you didn't remember the first two either......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I understand that aliens are on there way with some brain cells  they cooked up just for you in Martian mud puddles.  Let me know when they get here so you can answer the question:
> ...


When you get your data on biology from Harun Yahya, such pointless piffle as yours is expected.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > amino acids.
> ...


Shouldn't you be at your Flat Earth Society get together?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yea dummy.  You aren't the givee you are the giver.  It's your church that makes the money.  10% from each of you if you are doing it right.  Think of all the stuff you could do with that $3000 a year, dummy.

And what do you get in exchange?  Besides getting to hang around with other like minded dummies?  Nothing really, other than ETERNAL LIFE!  That's like a pension the preacher knows he never has to pay on because heaven doesn't exist.  

So what does the church offer again?  Nothing really.  Oh yea, they also make you asshole Christians feel good about yourselves.  What did the Christians do after they slaughtered the indians on Saturday?  They went to church on Sunday and asked for forgiveness.  What did they do after they worked their slaves all day Saturday?  They took their kids to church on Sunday.

So its just a meeting place for like minded people to hang out and one day they all believe they are going to a special place.  Same as the Muslims do.  That's why they pray 5 times a day.  Pathetic.

Sorry for the tough love.  My friend had to verbally smack me in the face so I would stop being stupid.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


nope, I'm visiting your Flat Head Society get together.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


As pointless as your usual pointlessness.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> What did the Christians do after they slaughtered the indians on Saturday? They went to church on Sunday and asked for forgiveness. What did they do after they worked their slaves all day Saturday? They took their kids to church on Sunday.


I'm sorry, were you not aware there were as many atheists killing indians and owning slaves as there were those of any other belief system?.....



sealybobo said:


> Oh yea, they also make you asshole Christians feel good about yourselves.


what a horrible purpose.....feeling good about yourself......when my church raises money for an HIV positive orphanage in Lesotho, or a service ministry center in Kentucky's Appalachian region, or the local food pantry you must consider it a horrible abomination......all those people feeling good about themselves.......


sealybobo said:


> My friend had to verbally smack me in the face so I would stop being stupid


all those bruises and it didn't even work......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What did the Christians do after they slaughtered the indians on Saturday? They went to church on Sunday and asked for forgiveness. What did they do after they worked their slaves all day Saturday? They took their kids to church on Sunday.
> ...



I wasn't aware of that until you made it up.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


so you believe that I made it up?.....did you seriously think that every single slave owner in the world was a Christian?......hard to believe, but I guess you actually WERE dumber than I thought......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



............You did make it up............ You're now back peddling in a frantic attempt to sidestep your false and unsupportable claim............

........You completely revised your pointless claim in hopes to avoid being described as "pointless"...........

So, show us the data that........ "there were as many atheists killing indians and owning slaves as there were those of any other belief system" .........as opposed to your edited claim, ..........."did you seriously think that every single slave owner in the world was a Christian?......


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2014)

Sealy, do you read the Qur'an?  
How do you tell the difference between a Muslim that believes the Qur'an and what it says to do with infidels, and the one that carries it out?  Ask your friend....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol.....the point, my feckless child, is that slavery was NOT a Christian institution......it was universally utilized by ignorant people....of which you are a prime example.....


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > What did the Christians do after they slaughtered the indians on Saturday? They went to church on Sunday and asked for forgiveness. What did they do after they worked their slaves all day Saturday? They took their kids to church on Sunday.
> ...



All those things you guys do to make yourselves feel better about yourselves because after you do that charitable work you go right back to being assholes 24/7.  And by the way, you aren't suppose to brag about your charitable works.

Oh, and I doubt there were very many atheists back in the day.  Back then everyone believed in god.  And even today you guys claim that there must be a god because most people believe there is one.  That's your evidence?  LOL.  So us atheists couldn't have killed as many indians as you theists because there were more of you.  It was your country remember?  It was you CHRISTIANS that founded this nation.  Murders.  But it was ok because the Indians didn't convert.  And what did Christians do to people that didn't convert?  They killed them.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 28, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Sealy, do you read the Qur'an?
> How do you tell the difference between a Muslim that believes the Qur'an and what it says to do with infidels, and the one that carries it out?  Ask your friend....



Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

"By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," he says. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."

It is called _herem,_ and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.

"In other words," Jenkins says, "Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God's law if you do not."


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 28, 2014)

Is The Bible More Violent Than The Quran NPR

"What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia," Jenkins says.

the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and _irjaf_, or terrorism.

According to the Quran, he says, those who practice _irjaf_ "are going to hell."

The Quran didn't produce enemies of the USA, we did.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Maybe not but racism sure was.  In fact the Christians in the north that helped free slaves, when they got together on Sundays the white people built a special section in the church for the blacks to sit.  When the blacks one day sat in the front row where the whites sit the preacher said they would have to move.  The blacks got up and walked out and never went back.  They started their own church.  You white American Christians came from a very ignorant evil immoral uneducated superstitious ancestory.  War mongering oppressors, etc.

And you want me to believe your crooked preachers when they tell me about god and jesus?  Fuck them and you!  LOL.  No offense, but I find you guys to be fucking nuts!  Soooo dumb.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


lol..... I see you have your earlier false claim as untenable....... so now it's on to more absurdities........

You should study your christian history............ lol.............

Slavery and the Making of America . The Slave Experience Religion PBS


The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Sealy, do you read the Qur'an?
> ...



Sealy, not only does the Qur'an dictate killing non Muslims, but it tells the ones who don't actively do the killing, to pray for the ones who do.  The extremists are held in higher esteem by Allah and the Muslims praying for the martyr's success.
We don't live in the 7th. century.  Christians aren't killing Indians.  Muslims are killing everyone. When is the last time you heard about a Christian suicide bomber on the news? Christians aren't severing heads. Today, Christians pray, Muslims prey. We are not on equal ground  because of our pasts.

  Tell your friend that what comes out of his mouth and what is actually happening in the world are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  And that includes in America.  How has your friend missed that?  80% of the Palestinians support suicide bombers to kill Jews.  Not all of them will strap on bombs, but they support the ones who do.

What your friend is telling you is that Muslims in America don't take the Qur'an seriously.  They do.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> And by the way, you aren't suppose to brag about your charitable works.


???....I thought I was just answering your question....did you think it sounded like bragging?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


lol....and yet, there are more Christians among non-white races than there are among whites.....sort of fucks up your logic, doesn't it.......as I recall, the very first convert was an Ethiopian.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


rather odd to conclude that the facts the slave became Christians proves that slavery is Christian.....one might almost have assumed they would resent it if that were true.......but you better not tell Seally.....he thinks racism is a Christian institution.....if he finds out the slaves converted to Christianity it will rattle his bucket.....


----------



## peach174 (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



The Ethiopian that you speak of converted to Judaism not Christianity.
The very first Christian converts were Jewish, then Peter converted the fist gentiles which was Cornelius and his family who were Romans


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


lol.......... rather odd to conclude that slavery was not a part of x-tianity when of course it was...............

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

peach174 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


???....no....he already WAS a Jew....
Acts 8:27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship....(only a Jew would go to Jerusalem to worship)...

Acts 8:34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?”35 Then Philip began  with that very passage of Scripture  and told him the good news  about Jesus.
36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


foolish conclusion.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 28, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



 You would want to present it that way because the history of Christianity includes slavery as an enterprise.

The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t


Help me out here, Mr. YEC'ist. So I'm conflicted on how to handle a domestic issue, and the absolutely universal law of God is not making it clear how I should proceed. Here's my conflict, from Leviticus 25:45-46
________________________________________
_"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession." _
________________________________________
Here's my problem. One of the 4 year old children of the heathens around me actually has converted to Judaism. Now, technically he is still heathen, at least by blood. Can I buy this child anyway, or does the conversion override the bloodline issue? I suspect that a 4 year old isn't old enough to make such a decision regarding their status, so I can buy and enslave him anyway?

Can you enlighten me on how the bibles resolves such a conflict?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 28, 2014)

And here is the resolution to your conflict.  You're not Jewish. 
Why would you put yourself under laws that pertain to a specific people for a specific time?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The theory of evolution What scientists believe it is and isn t



funny....the Bible according to Bruce....did you know the Religious Tolerance Organization is actually the basement of Bruce, who has a BS in engineering and says he will never study theology because it might interfere with the knowledge of religion he already has?.......lol....

in short, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and refuses to learn......nice source.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 28, 2014)

Hollie said:


> You would want to present it that way because the history of Christianity includes slavery as an enterprise.


don't keep it a secret, Hollie, what history would that be?.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You would want to present it that way because the history of Christianity includes slavery as an enterprise.
> ...


The history you're in denial about. 

Don't keep it a secret. You never read the links I gave you because you're not interested in honesty or integrity.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I don't read links to ReligiousTolerance because the articles are written by Bruce......if he says something its almost a guarantee its false.......

did someone make a pathetic attempt to justify American slavery by using the Bible?.....yes.....does that make it a Christian enterprise?.....you are out of your fucking mind.....and so is Bruce......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Well, no.............. Christianity has nothing to do with bibles..............

And yes.............. It's best you don't read anything that might contradict your fundamentalist views................. Denial of x-tian history is so much easier........................


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


as I recall, you keep the same open mindedness about Answers in Genesis......Bruce makes the authors of AIG look like scholars.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yet another failed comparison..............


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

why?.....was I wrong about your opinion of AIG?......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> why?.....was I wrong about your opinion of AIG?......


why?.......... you don't understand false comparisons?..............


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Dude, I'm glad I watched that piece on ISIS last night on PBS before responding to you.  Those guys are crazy.  Did you see them lining up Shiites and just shooting them by the dozens?  So close to Baghdad?  The entire time yelling allah akbar.  One young ignorant misled naive nothing to lose guy kept saying over and over "There is no god but"  god"  

This is the Al Queda Bin Ladin dreamed of.  The leader preached at a Mosque the other day in public.  Bin Ladin couldn't do that.  These guys thought they'd go in to Kirkuk or Ramani or whatever city and just hit and run and then they realized just how weak the Iraqi Shiite army is so instead of just taking over the jail and freeing all the prisoners they took over the whole town.  Malaki did all this!  He totally fucked up.  That was Bush's puppet.  He is totally incompetent.  

Isis is also made up mostly of former Saddam Bathist.  So proof we should have never gotten rid of Saddam.  He was the only one that could control this country.  

Now Isis is tearing down the borders between Syria and Iraq and Iran.  They don't believe in borders.  They won't stop till they take over the entire middle east.  Then Europe would be in danger.  

They were talking about Islam's Caliphate.  They said even if 1% of Muslims went along, that would be thousands of Muslims all of the sudden waging war on the rest of us.

Caliphate - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The successor to Mohammad.  Much like our Pope or the leader of the Mormon church.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

The more crazy the Muslims get, the more it proves us Atheists right about crazy man made up organized religions.  Your kooky man made up organized religion isn't that crazy?  Ok.  But it is still crazy.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



When you talk you sound almost as dumb as the ISIS guys I saw on PBS last night running around shooting Shiites in the head and at the same time yelling allah akbar. 

You may think you are on the side of right or the better side and you might even be right.  But even your side is wack if you ask us atheists.  We don't want our choices to be your wacky religion or theirs.  There should be a third option especially when it is the correct option and that is None of the above.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



My brother made a good point about the Indians.  We portray them as living a beautiful peaceful life but the reality was they were just like the Taliban today.  Wild waring savages who would cut your head off and put your penis in your dead mouth.  If we didn't take over America back then we'd be living in Europe or Australia and we'd be dealing with Osama Bin Sitting Bull.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 29, 2014)

Why do I get the feeling that thou protest too much?  And that you just realized the horror on Islam.   Were you absent the day they brought beheading Americans to show and tell?

Cutting off body parts was not an Indian custom, but it is a Muslim one.  Even taking scalps was a practice invented by the English.

So sealy, if you* had *to convert or die, which would you choose, Sunni or Shite?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > why?.....was I wrong about your opinion of AIG?......
> ...


if you're claiming there is one, apparently yes.....you'll need to explain it.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


why?....did they point out that something you said was stupid, like I did?.....


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Why do I get the feeling that thou protest too much?  And that you just realized the horror on Islam.   Were you absent the day they brought beheading Americans to show and tell?
> 
> Cutting off body parts was not an Indian custom, but it is a Muslim one.  Even taking scalps was a practice invented by the English.
> 
> So sealy, if you* had *to convert or die, which would you choose, Sunni or Shite?



Depends on who is on the other side of the knife.  

And I don't just now realize the horror of Islam.  I realize the horror of radical Islam.  Same way I realize the horror of radical Christianity only radical Islam is a much more imminent threat.

What I realized or what was reconfirmed last night is just how crazy the notion of god(s) can make people.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 29, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Why do I get the feeling that thou protest too much?  And that you just realized the horror on Islam.   Were you absent the day they brought beheading Americans to show and tell?
> 
> Cutting off body parts was not an Indian custom, but it is a Muslim one.  Even taking scalps was a practice invented by the English.
> 
> So sealy, if you* had *to convert or die, which would you choose, Sunni or Shite?



I'm sure any theist on USMB arguing with us isn't 100% sure either and that's why most of them are here.  Either that or they are trying to convert people.  So the ones who aren't trying to convert, deep down they know they are operating on sheer blind faith.  Wishful thinking.  Better to be sorry.

Do they ever think about how dumb they would feel if we could talk to them after they die and say "see, told you no god or heaven or hell exists"  But we will never be able to have that conversation so you guys are operating on a "its better to be safe than sorry" belief system.  No way you believe you KNOW god exists and none of you CAN BELIEVE there is no god.  That's all you got really.

I wish there was a hell but only for people who believe in god(s).  In other words, if you are dumb enough to believe in gods, that is what sends you to hell.  LOL


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 29, 2014)

Among other things, we are called to love God with our mind.  And doing so means using your head.  There are things that don't require faith.  End time prophecy is one, for example.  When you can watch the news and recognize prophecy being fulfilled at a fevered pitch, faith is confirmed.  As a believer I am 100% sure.

The reason those in Christ want everyone to know Christ is because we* are *sure, and want no one to miss their opportunity of eternal life with their Father.  We are called to spread the good news,  that Christ died in our sins and returned without them. Christ said that * that *is the only way to enter into the presence of God.  Sin free.

So here is the dilemma  of those who don't accept Christ's gift of salvation as oppose to those who do:
If Christians are wrong then we die, period.  No harm, no foul.  We just cease to exist. 
But if Christ was right, your entire eternity is at stake.  You have traded it for your own understanding.  How often in this life have you been wrong about something, and what were the consequences?  If you are wrong about Christ the consequences are dire.   Why bet something as important as your eternal life, when it isn't necessary?  Bet your life on Christ and remove all doubt.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Already explained........... You missed it................


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


/shrugs......hard not to miss something that wasn't there......


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


/shrugs....... You do it all the time...........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 29, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Among other things, we are called to love God with our mind.  And doing so means using your head.  There are things that don't require faith.  End time prophecy is one, for example.  When you can watch the news and recognize prophecy being fulfilled at a fevered pitch, faith is confirmed.  As a believer I am 100% sure.
> 
> The reason those in Christ want everyone to know Christ is because we* are *sure, and want no one to miss their opportunity of eternal life with their Father.  We are called to spread the good news,  that Christ died in our sins and returned without them. Christ said that * that *is the only way to enter into the presence of God.  Sin free.
> 
> ...



Pretty typical extremist babble.

Pascal's Wager-- the underlying threat of the theistic argument-- "Gamble that there is a god on the chance he will not send you to an eternity of torture."

Fallacies:

a. What if you have chosen the wrong gods? You will spend an eternity apart from your “real” gods for making such an egregious error

b. "Betting" on gods displays prideful ego and might anger the gods, and you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

c. Gods might prefer courage of one's convictions instead of cowardice and self-deceit, in which case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error

d. What if the gods deplore such self-serving narcissism and instead embraces the atheist for not succumbing to threats of a human nature? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.

e. What if the gods are revolted by the very suggestion that there is something like an "eternal punishment"? In that case you might spend eternity apart from him for making such an egregious error.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 29, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you ever find it, you let us know.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You can find it. Your being lazy and shiftless is not my problem.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 30, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Among other things, we are called to love God with our mind.  And doing so means using your head.  There are things that don't require faith.  End time prophecy is one, for example.  When you can watch the news and recognize prophecy being fulfilled at a fevered pitch, faith is confirmed.  As a believer I am 100% sure.
> ...


Well that's why Jesus died so we would be saved.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 30, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


nothing to find....never has been, never will be.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The various Bibles are like that....................


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 30, 2014)

Jesus died taking all judgement for sin off of our shoulders.  It is a gift that not everyone will accept.  Those who do are called the children of God. Those who don't are called Hollies.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Jesus died taking all judgement for sin off of our shoulders.  It is a gift that not everyone will accept.  Those who do are called the children of God. Those who don't are called Hollies.


You're what, 12 years old?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 30, 2014)

> Does the jeebus approve of your making threats on his behalf?



Old enough to spell Jesus....


----------



## MrDVS1 (Oct 30, 2014)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


----------



## MrDVS1 (Oct 30, 2014)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...



Sure just like Jesus and his Apostles.....not!


----------



## MrDVS1 (Oct 30, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Let's see here, the last global extinction nocked the human down to 28,000.....in Africa, what color should I think these people were. It seems to me that the lack of heat and sunshine turned black people white.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 30, 2014)

Jesus and the apostles were what ever color Jews are.  

Noah's family included 4 women whose genetics aren't referred to, other than that they were pure in their DNA, Noah's wife being one of those. But the appearance of the children is mentioned.  And they vary from fair to dusky to black. And then it tracks the path of each.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Jesus and the apostles were what ever color Jews are.
> 
> Noah's family included 4 women whose genetics aren't referred to, other than that they were pure in their DNA, Noah's wife being one of those. But the appearance of the children is mentioned.  And they vary from fair to dusky to black. And then it tracks the path of each.


Tales and fables only a fundie would accept.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 30, 2014)

Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?


Amino acids don't know any such thing. 

How did Noah's pleasure cruise happen just a few thousand years ago when civilizations / cultures txt existed at that time have no history of such an event?

Was it the magic of your gawds?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 30, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?



How come no one wrote about Jesus back in the day?  I mean NO ONE.  Some say the Jews destroyed all evidence of Jesus but from the stories in the bible, Jesus was a very popular person.  People near and far saw him do miracles.  No Jewish, Greek or Arabic or Roman writers wrote about him or the event?  You do realize that there were plenty of writers and historians 2000 years ago.  Not one person wrote about Jesus.  The people who did write about him wrote about him after the fact and only from hearsay evidence.  The bibles were written at least 60 years after the fact by people who weren't even there.  Not even first hand accounts.  2nd hand at best.  

Basically Christianity started out as a cult.  11 guys.  It grew because people back then were very gullible.  Still are today.  Had Christianity never started I suspect we'd all be Jews or whatever the Romans were back in Jesus' day.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> How come no one wrote about Jesus back in the day?


I neither know, nor care.



sealybobo said:


> Basically Christianity started out as a cult.  11 guys.


Yup. And again, that doesn't matter.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?
> ...


Well, the flood was a large but regional event. That's how.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



Whom did Cain and Abel marry and have children with?  The Bible is a set of stories passed down over many generations.  There actually is evidence of a catastrophic flood, but it did not flood the entire world, just most of the Middle East.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


A large, local, (not necessarily regional flood is possible), however, that is still devastating to the reliability and accuracy of the bibles. The Noah fable is central, elemental to christian mythology. Per the fable, it defines the christian gawds as wiping their creation from the planet because that creation was a disappointment. It defines the planet being repopulated in the span of just a few thousand years.

The bibles, and christian mythology, crash to the ground in flames with the Noah fable stripped of its relevance to christiandom.


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


So you're saying that the bible is bullshit?


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Jesus and the apostles were what ever color Jews are.
> 
> Noah's family included 4 women whose genetics aren't referred to, other than that they were pure in their DNA, Noah's wife being one of those. But the appearance of the children is mentioned.  And they vary from fair to dusky to black. And then it tracks the path of each.


How did Noah get to be 600 years old, and why don't we live that long anymore?


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Another bibler who thinks that the bible is bs. Geez, does anyone believe in the bible anymore?


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> Another bibler who thinks that the bible is bs. Geez, does anyone believe in the bible anymore?


I practice Bhudism, thank you. Please keep your stereotypes to yourself.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> however, that is still devastating to the reliability and accuracy of the bibles.


sweety, it doesn't even shake the branches.....the only folks it bothers are the atheists who need literalism to give themselves a chance at arguing........


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > however, that is still devastating to the reliability and accuracy of the bibles.
> ...


Well, pumpkin, to you YEC'ists, not truth, not reality itself will affect you. For you extremist Flat Earth'ers, denial is your body armor. You are impervious to reason and rationality which is why entire elements of the bibles being dismantled as myth and legend causes you to just sink deeper into your dark place of fear and ignorance.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

ironic.....


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > however, that is still devastating to the reliability and accuracy of the bibles.
> ...


Umm, not at all pumpkin. When a very core element of the bibles is shown to derive from myth and legend, it throws into question the entirety of the bibles and their relevance. The timelines of Noah's pleasure cruise, the tales of incestuous / familial relations as a means to repopulate the planet are foundational elements of the bibles. Without the Noah fable, the bibles are stripped of much of the mythology.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> ironic.....


Not at all. Your inability to produce a coherent argument typically leaves you with little to offer.


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > however, that is still devastating to the reliability and accuracy of the bibles.
> ...


So you're saying that the bible is bullshit? Don't believe anything you read?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



So really it was just a lake and all he did was round up two chickens, goats, cows, horses, camels, dogs and cats and pigs and the story was embellished?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

Pezz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > How come no one wrote about Jesus back in the day?
> ...



Why?  Maybe they made it up in the year 80?  We know the bible(s) were written long after Jesus supposedly died on the cross and it was hearsay.  In fact most would agree that it didn't even go from the 11's mouths to the writers pen.  It wouldn't even be like if I told you I saw god.  The men who wrote the bible were told the stories from their forefathers who didn't even see it themselves.  Then take into account the Catholic Church heavily altered the bible.  God knows if any of it is true.  Even the Mormons admit all this about traditional Christianity.  That's why god told Joseph Smith to start a new church.  And I believe god told Mohammad this very same thing 500 years ago.

Amazing the fact that the entire story is bullshit never crosses your minds.  

One more thing.  The coming of a Messiah is in the Old Testament.  It was very easy for the people who wrote the bible to follow the script or prophecy.  Swear the Messiah came.  How come so few of the Jews converted and they literally saw Jesus do what he do?  Supposedly a lot of people saw Jesus.  But his following didn't start in year 1 of his death.  It actually started to gain serious numbers 80 years later, in other countries.  So the 11 spread their lies and the dumb people in the most remote parts of the world swallowed it.  It's even written in the bible, don't ask for proof.  How convenient.  So our ancestors swallowed a lie and you are still swallowing it and you want us to also?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

MrDVS1 said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Wasn't the last one the one that killed the dinosaurs?  We were just small hairy rodent size animals back then.  That's how long ago the dinosaurs were ruling this planet.  Had they not gotten wiped out our species may not have ever happened.  I wonder if/when we kill ourselves from war or pollution, what new life form will rule after us?  Because the planet will be just fine.  So will cockroaches and single cell organism. 

So why did god put the dinosaurs on earth for millions of years before us and then wipe them out?  Did they sin?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


The ingredients are all there. Add a dash of a seasonal high tide or a sprinkle of soaking rain, mix in some animals looking for high ground and you have the fixins' of a tale. Add a heapin' helpin' of tales recited from generation to generation with a tablespoon of imaginative embellishments and you have the "Fable of Ark'ness", as opposed to the fable of Loch Ness.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



Aren't some Christians trying to start the rumor that god talked to George Washington?  And GW Bush said god told him what to do and look at how that worked out for us.


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Not at all. Just saying that many of the stories or descriptions of events are not all literal.  To Noah, his entire world would have been flooded.  That does not mean that all of Asia, Australia, and North and South America were flooded also.  At that time, Noah didn't even know those parts of the world existed.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

auditor0007 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Or that he was talking to himself because god doesn't exist.  Maybe he just had a lucky hunch?  Maybe a flood nearly drowned them before the Great Flood?  

He sort of reminds me of a guy who's paranoid and builds a bomb shelter and turns out he lived in Hiroshima.  Of course when he crawls out of the hole he dug he's going to tell everyone it was god who told him to build it.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?
> ...



Hollie you should sue your brain for non-support.

Amino acids of either of these two types can easily bond with one another. But one astonishing fact that has been revealed by research is that all the proteins in plants and animals on this planet, from the simplest organism to the most complex, are made up of left-handed amino acids. If even a single right-handed amino acid gets attached to the structure of a protein, the protein is rendered useless. In a series of experiments, surprisingly, bacteria that were exposed to right-handed amino acids immediately destroyed them. In some cases, they produced usable left-handed amino acids from the fractured components.

Let us for an instant suppose that life came about by chance as evolutionists claim it did. In this case, the right- and left-handed amino acids that were generated by chance should be present in roughly equal proportions in nature. Therefore, all living things should have both right- and left-handed amino acids in their constitution, because chemically it is possible for amino acids of both types to combine with each other. However, as we know, in the real world the proteins existing in all living organisms are made up only of left-handed amino acids.

*The question of how proteins can pick out only the left-handed ones from among all amino acids, and how not even a single right-handed amino acid gets involved in the life process, is a problem that still baffles evolutionists. *Such a specific and conscious selection constitutes one of the greatest impasses facing the theory of evolution. 

Moreover, this characteristic of proteins makes the problem facing evolutionists with respect to "chance" even worse. In order for a "meaningful" protein to be generated, it is not enough for the amino acids to be present in a particular number and sequence, and to be combined together in the right three-dimensional design. Additionally, all these amino acids have to be left-handed: not even one of them can be right-handed. Yet there is no natural selection mechanism which can identify that a right-handed amino acid has been added to the sequence and recognize that it must therefore be removed from the chain. This situation once more eliminates for good the possibility of coincidence and chance.

_The Britannica Science Encyclopaedia_, which is an outspoken defender of evolution, states that the amino acids of all living organisms on earth, and the building blocks of complex polymers such as proteins, have the same left-handed asymmetry. *It adds that this is tantamount to tossing a coin a million times and always getting heads. The same encyclopaedia states that it is impossible to understand why molecules become left-handed or right-handed, and that this choice is fascinatingly related to the origin of life on earth.*


Maybe you can solve the problem:
Life s Left-Handed Amino Acids Still A Puzzle - Forbes


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


You should call one of your fundie creation ministries for an answer. 

Strange how you get your science from non- science sources. Maybe that helps you think you can find a crack to jam your gawds into?

Otherwise, your amino acids conspiracy theory is one that is typically promoted by fundie Christians. The charlatans who pander to the science illiterate such as yourself make you look quite foolish.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, I'm glad your here.  Tell me, how do amino acids know if they are left handed or right handed, and know where to attach to a strand of DNA?
> ...



Wrong on every point.  His trial is recorded. His return is recorded.  Philosophers tried to explain why the earth went dark at noon for 3 hours while He was on the cross.  
Christianity began with hordes of people following Christ.  He sent out 70 disciples in one day to various towns.  People back then were very skeptical, not gullible.  There was a messiah du jour back then.  What distinguished Christ from the rest was the miracles He preformed, the healings and His return from the grave.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


Wrong as usual. You already acknowledge that people were skeptical (they were and are gullible- you for example).

There are no verifiable accounts of the jeebus performing miracles. 

Lastly, there are no verifiable accounts of the Jeeb returning from the grave. The Jeeb was never buried. You didn't know that? 

Your ignorance is not surprising.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Oh Hollie, quit before your stupidity becomes a Wikipedia standard. 
Amino acids and their handedness isn't a conspiracy.  Fundies have nothing to do with their being right handed or left handed.  Fundies just know who is responsible for the phenomenon.   You don't even know there is one.  Just like you didn't know about Noah being in the Qur'an.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie, Your ignorance is sad.....
I feel bad for you.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Oh Hollie, quit before your stupidity becomes a Wikipedia standard.
> Amino acids and their handedness isn't a conspiracy.  Fundies have nothing to do with their being right handed or left handed.  Fundies just know who is responsible for the phenomenon.   You don't even know there is one.  Just like you didn't know about Noah being in the Qur'an.


Oh my, but you fundie zealots are a hoot. Your pointless cutting and pasting what you're clueless about is what lead me to expose your fraudulent and dishonest editing and parsing of "quotes" you stole from your fundamentalist x-tian ministries.

CB040 Left-handed amino acids

*Claim CB040:*
The twenty amino acids used by life are all the left-handed variety. This is very unlikely to have occurred by chance.

*Source:*
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 43
*Response:*


The amino acids that are used in life, like most other aspects of living things, are very likely not the product of chance. Instead, they likely resulted from a selection process. A simple peptide replicator can amplify the proportion of a single handedness in an initially random mixture of left- and right-handed fragments (Saghatelian et al. 2001; TSRI 2001). Self-assemblies on two-dimensional surfaces can also amplify a single handedness (Zepik et al. 2002). Serine forms stable clusters of a single handedness which can select other amino acids of like handedness by subtituting them for serine; these clusters also incorporate other biologically important molecules such as glyceraldehyde, glucose, and phosphoric acid (Takats et al. 2003). An excess of handedness in one kind of amino acid catalyzes the handedness of other organic products, such as threose, which may have figured prominently in proto-life (Pizzarello and Weber 2004).
Amino acids found in meteorites from space, which must have formed abiotically, also show significantly more of the left-handed variety, perhaps from circularly polarized UV light in the early solar system (Engel and Macko 1997; Cronin and Pizzarello 1999). The weak nuclear force, responsible for beta decay, produces only electrons with left-handed spin, and chemicals exposed to these electrons are far more likely to form left-handed crystals (Service 1999). Such mechanisms might also have been responsible for the prevalence of left-handed amino acids on earth.
The first self-replicator may have had eight or fewer types of amino acids (Cavalier-Smith 2001). It is not all that unlikely that the same handedness might occur so few times by chance, especially if one of the amino acids was glycine, which has no handedness.
Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

And:

NASA - NASA and University Researchers Find a Clue to How Life Turned Left




This is an artist's concept of excess left-hand aspartic acid created in asteroids and delivered to Earth via meteorite impacts. The line at the bottom is a chromatogram showing that left-hand aspartic acid (tall peak in the center, with diagram of left-hand aspartic acid molecule on top) was four times more abundant in the meteorite sample than right-hand aspartic acid (smaller peak to the left, with right-handed aspartic acid molecule on top). *Credit:* NASA/Hrybyk-Keith, Mary P. 
Full-resolution image Researchers analyzing meteorite fragments that fell on a frozen lake in Canada have developed an explanation for the origin of life's handedness – why living things only use molecules with specific orientations. The work also gave the strongest evidence to date that liquid water inside an asteroid leads to a strong preference of left-handed over right-handed forms of some common protein amino acids in meteorites. The result makes the search for extraterrestrial life more challenging. 


I know, right?  You feel like an idiot.


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

So if a worldwide flood drowned everyone except Noah and his bunch, nobody's explained to me how we got blacks , asians, pigmies, indians... 110 pages in and still no answer. And why is there no evidence of a flood?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie, Your ignorance is sad.....
> I feel bad for you.


No need. When your pointless cutting and pasting exposes you as a fraud and a liar, your masters at Harun Yahya will deal with you.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Hol, See what I mean?  You cut and paste and then call it pointless.  You keep running around in the same angry circle.
Do you not get from your cutting and pasting that science has moved from your erroneous soup guess,  to outer space as the new more educated guess?  Because they found out that amino acids are programed, and chance can't program, so they had to come with something else,  somewhere else.  Maybe aliens.

But as soon as they pick a new theory they run into the same wall.  Regardless of where they come from, the question still exists.  Who wrote their code?

I think you are out of your *element (  )  *trying to explain what science can't explain, and fundie is your best shot.  And me pointing that out is less than Christian, and I don't like that, so fundy away.  If you make a valid point or ask a germane question, I'll respond.  I'll ignore the personal attacks, as a coping mechanism, and not something that requires a response.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> So if a worldwide flood drowned everyone except Noah and his bunch, nobody's explained to me how we got blacks , asians, pigmies, indians... 110 pages in and still no answer. And why is there no evidence of a flood?




There is an answer.  The women on board the ark.


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So if a worldwide flood drowned everyone except Noah and his bunch, nobody's explained to me how we got blacks , asians, pigmies, indians... 110 pages in and still no answer. And why is there no evidence of a flood?
> ...


So they had to evolve? And where's the proof of a flood?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hol, See what I mean?  You cut and paste and then call it pointless.  You keep running around in the same angry circle.
> Do you not get from your cutting and pasting that science has moved from your erroneous soup guess,  to outer space as the new more educated guess?  Because they found out that amino acids are programed, and chance can't program, so they had to come from somewhere else.  Maybe aliens.
> 
> But as soon as they pick a new theory they run into the same wall.  Regardless of where they come from, the question still exists.  Who wrote their code?
> ...


Good for you. I see that you have abandoned your pointless "amino acid conspiracy theory". See, that is the danger you face when you're wholly ignorant of science and mindlessly cut and paste whatever nonsense appeals to your fundamentalist religious beliefs.

In furtherance of your "amino acid conspiracy theory" (and because you fundies are worth a chuckle for comic relief), I have it on good authority that the below linked article is part of a vast conspiracy among those _evilutionist_ scientists. It's all a fake.

The truth is that the jeebus was hurling boulders from Mt. Vesuvius and secretly planted the amino acids so as to play a cruel joke on you fundies.

Meteorite That Fell in 1969 Still Revealing Secrets of the Early Solar System - Scientific American

Fragments of a chemically primitive meteorite that landed near Murchison, Australia, in 1969 have long been known to harbor a variety of interesting compounds, including dozens of amino acids. But as analytic techniques become more sophisticated, the Murchison meteorite continues to reveal even more diversity and complexity in the early solar system, and new work by a team of European researchers is no exception.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So if a worldwide flood drowned everyone except Noah and his bunch, nobody's explained to me how we got blacks , asians, pigmies, indians... 110 pages in and still no answer. And why is there no evidence of a flood?
> ...


"...... because I say so"

There. Fixed that for ya'.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Here Taz,


*Evidence and Theories of a Great Flood*
Hundreds of myths from around the world suggest there was a great flood -- possibly local or possibly global, depending on the story. Christians generally believe that this is Noah's flood, a global event brought on by God to cleanse the world of wickedness.

The scientific community doesn't wholly doubt the possibility of a great flood, but it has yet to answer the questions of where and when it might have happened.

There are two scientific theories in existence, one suggesting flooding around the area that is now the Black Sea and the other attributing devastating floods to a comet that struck the Earth. Let's first look at the more popular hypothesis: the flooding of the Black Sea, also known as Noah's Flood Hypothesis.

In the late 1990s, Columbia University geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman proposed that a great flood in the Middle East resulted from rising water levels at the end of the last Ice Age about 7,000 years ago. At that time, the Black Sea was a freshwater lake and the lands around it were farmlands. When the European glaciers melted, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed with a force 200 times greater than that of Niagara Falls, converting the Black Sea from fresh to saltwater and flooding the area [source: National Geographic].

National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence, including an underwater river valley and ancient shoreline as well as Stone Age structures and tools beneath the Black Sea. His team has also unearthed fossils of now-extinct freshwater species dating back some 7,460 to 15,500 years.

While this theory is still being reviewed, Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, put forth his own theory about the great flood. He hypothesizes that more comets and meteors than we know have hit Earth throughout its history. He believes the seeds of great flood stories may have sprouted when a comet hit our planet about 5,000 years ago.

Masse's presumption is that a 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) wide comet crashed into the ocean off the coast of what is now Madagascar. The result? Worldwide chaos, including violent 600-foot (182.8-meter) high tsunamis and massive hurricanes spawned when superheated water vapor and aerosol particulates shot into jet streams. All of this terror was accompanied by a week of darkness caused by material expelled into the atmosphere.

Masse's theory derives from clues in cultural flood myths, including ancient petroglyphs, drawings and historical records, but it's the physical evidence he's after to make the case. Since Masse presented his idea in 2004, he's found support in the geological community.

A 600-foot high tsunami would surely leave behind a geological calling card -- and that it did. When waves are generated by such a significant impact, they create wedge-shaped configurations in the sand, known as *chevrons*, and when the Holocene Impact Working Group went looking for them with satellite imagery, they were able to locate such formations in Africa and Asia. Carbon dating fossils found in the chevrons will help determine if they fit within the proposed 5,000-year


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Here Taz,
> 
> 
> *Evidence and Theories of a Great Flood*
> ...




Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition

So tell us about the dinosaurs on the Ark cruise to nowhere.




The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month May 2004

So tell us about Noah and his immediate family repopulating the planet in just a few thousand years. 

Apparently, your gawds embrace the "incest is best" paradigm.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



No they didn't need to evolve.  Different genes.  Dominant and recessive ones.  It is how  a set of parents with brown eyes can produce a child with blue eyes.   A mixed gene marriage can produce a child that is fair as well as a child that is dark.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


So, Noah and his immediate had dominant and recessive genes magically implanted by your magical gawds?

How do you know that?


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



And why 2 straight couples can raise a child and that child will turn out gay or two gays can raise a child who turns out to be straight.  

Science can't understand why we haven't bred the left handed gene out of our species but us lefties are very persistent.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

We have already covered the population, flood vs Non flood.
Here is how it breaks down:

*What growth rate is needed to get six billion people since the Flood?*
It is relatively easy to calculate the growth rate needed to get today’s population from Noah’s three sons and their wives, after the Flood. With the Flood at about 4,500 years ago, it needs less than 0.5% per year growth. That’s not very much.

Of course, population growth has not been constant. There is reasonably good evidence that growth has been slow at times—such as in the Middle Ages in Europe. However, data from the Bible shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years, with an average of 31 years, so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).  This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.

If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection, this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.

* Australian Aborigines—cultural traditions connect to Noah*
In addition to population figures, there is much other evidence against the supposed long ages of Aboriginal occupation of Australia—the observed rapid deterioration of supposedly ancient paintings, for example.

Furthermore, many Aboriginal tribes have stories, long predating their contact with Christian missionaries, of a global Flood, sometimes with startling similarities to the Bible’s account, but with sufficient differences to show that they were not recently incorporated into their folklore following contacts with missionaries. It is stretching credulity to suggest that these stories have been maintained by word-of-mouth for 40 to 60 thousand years, or that they were invented and just by chance have these incredible similarities to the Bible account.

The Aboriginal population and their stories are much more in line with their having been a nomadic/‘gypsy’ people who found themselves in Australia relatively recently—certainly after the biblical Flood.

* A remarkable coincidence?*
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

Hardly. The figures agree because the real history of the world is recorded in the Bible

*What if people had been around for one million years?*
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



DNA. Gene research, and magically implanted by their parents.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> We have already covered the population, flood vs Non flood.
> Here is how it breaks down:
> 
> *What growth rate is needed to get six billion people since the Flood?*
> ...


It's obvious why you refuse to identify the source of your silliness: your fundie creation ministries.

We both know that your christian Madrassahs will further this nonsense which is why they don't publish in peer reviewed journals.


Here's another source that refutes creationist fantasies.


The whole silly Flood story - SkepticReport


----------



## The Irish Ram (Oct 31, 2014)

*References *
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), _Creation_ *14*(1):16–19). 
Joseph Lister: father of modern surgery, _Creation_ *14*(2):48-51)
Morris, H.M., World population and Bible chronology, _Creation Research Society Quarterly _*3*(3):7–10, 1966.  
In the Days of Peleg. However, his naming could have been prophetic, like Methuselah, who died in the year of the Flood and whose name means ‘When he dies, it shall be sent’. If this is true, then Babel could have been some time after Peleg’s birth, but during his lifetime.
Sensational dinosaur blood report! _Creation _*19*(4):42–3, 1997. 
A better model of the Stone Age, _Journal of Creation_ *2*(1):88–102, 1986 and Part 2, _Journal of Creation_ *3*(1):73–95, 1988. 
How long have Aborigines been in Australia? _Creation _*15*(3):48–50,


----------



## Taz (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


So how do you make an Asian? Where's proof of the flood?


----------



## Hollie (Oct 31, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> *References *
> Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), _Creation_ *14*(1):16–19).
> Joseph Lister: father of modern surgery, _Creation_ *14*(2):48-51)
> Morris, H.M., World population and Bible chronology, _Creation Research Society Quarterly _*3*(3):7–10, 1966.
> ...


Well of course. Your information comes from a fundamentalist creation ministry. You have a preconceived bias and you flaunt that by using one of the worst examples of bible thumping charlatans: Henry Morrs.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....no, I'm saying your posts are bullshit.....wasn't that obvious?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> We know the bible(s) were written long after Jesus supposedly died on the cross and it was hearsay.


actually, we know your arguments were made up long after Jesus died on the cross, and are all hearsay......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


soy sauce.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


yes.....going to remember the answer this time or are you going to forget it again.........I sympathize with your family.....Alzheimer's sucks......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


gays, alcoholics, sickle cell anemia.....all sorts of genetic abnormalities.....


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Why?


It's not pertinent to anything going on in my life. Sure Christianity started out as a cult, and that changes my life how? My employer started out as a small business, is that also supposed to end my world?



sealybobo said:


> Amazing the fact that the entire story is bullshit never crosses your minds.


Amazing that you assume that. Whatever happened, happened, the only difference to me is what I can get out of the story to apply in my life. I wasn't alive back then, so whatever happened back then is neat to know, but I'm only truly interested in what I can apply in my life today, things I can physically go and do. Rather or not the bible is bullshit doesn't help me keep my weight under control, get out of debt, etc, so I just don't care either way. I find parts of the bible helpful and I don't require you or anyone else to see the same things as helpful to you because, again, your life doesn't apply to mine.



sealybobo said:


> How come so few of the Jews converted and they literally saw Jesus do what he do?


I have no idea. Whoever converted, converted, and whoever didn't, didn't, either way I still have two double-shifts to work this weekend so it doesn't matter; it doesn't change anything.



sealybobo said:


> So our ancestors swallowed a lie and you are still swallowing it and you want us to also?


I'm not trying to recruit you. Believe whatever you want.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Given the size of the religion I'm sure it's possible to find "_some Christians_" who are saying just about anything one can imagine.


----------



## Ellipsis (Oct 31, 2014)

Taz said:


> So how do you make an Asian? Where's proof of the flood?


You've been given a credable, detailed analysis of how exactly the flood went down three times now. You already know that Asians as a race were never endangered to begin with.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

Pezz said:


> either way I still have two double-shifts to work this weekend


I'll have a happy meal. Thanks.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So how do you make an Asian? Where's proof of the flood?
> ...


Sorry, you can't just change the bible to mean anything you want. It talks about a worldwide flood, not a regional flood, and no amount of calling the bible bs, as you do, will change that fact. 
Plus, where's the proof of such a, even regional, 40 day flood that covered the whole area/earth?


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Where's the evidence of a 40 day flood?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > either way I still have two double-shifts to work this weekend
> ...


Yeah, I'm a lab tech.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


the premise that evidence is necessary is the bullshit referred to.......


----------



## Meriweather (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> Sorry, you can't just change the bible to mean anything you want. It talks about a worldwide flood, not a regional flood, and no amount of calling the bible bs, as you do, will change that fact.
> Plus, where's the proof of such a, even regional, 40 day flood that covered the whole area/earth?



We can understand a story the way the author meant it to be understood.  When the story was written, no one was aware of the size and shape of the planet.  What they did know is that as far as the eye could see, their world was covered in water.  Science and details from scripture are helping people today pinpoint exactly where this great flood was--and what caused it.

Also worth remembering is how "forty days" is used throughout the Bible.  It appears to be a figure of speech where the exact time is not the issue.  The point is that there was a time of trial and testing--sometimes measured in days, sometimes in years.  (There were days of trial and testing; there were years of trial and testing.)


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So asking for evidence of the flood is bullshit? So you admit that the stories in the bible aren't true?  So if you don't believe in the bible, you're probably not even a Christian. Maybe try the koran?


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, you can't just change the bible to mean anything you want. It talks about a worldwide flood, not a regional flood, and no amount of calling the bible bs, as you do, will change that fact.
> ...


Ok, I hear what you're saying, when god told Noah he was going to flood the whole earth and drown everyone except those on his skiff, god was just joking around, and he didn't really mean what he said. So the bible ISN'T the word of god?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


yes, asking for evidence of the flood is bullshit, no I don't admit the stories in the bible aren't true.....I merely point out that no one is required to prove any of it to anyone, and if you choose to disregard it, that is up to you......no one else really gives a fuck whether you want things proved to you or not.......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Of course.


PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Yeah, that pesky evidence (lack of), gets in the way of your YEC'ist claims to Arks and floods that never happened.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That's what this thread is about you fucking asswipe. So why are you here? 
So you believe the stories are true without evidence? Fuck are you ever a simpleton. Please leave this thread, it's about proof of the flood story. No proof = Story not true.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


have you ever noticed that trolling around asking stupid questions doesn't actually make you look more intelligent than everyone else trolling around asking stupid questions?........


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Meriweather said:
> ...


Not talking to you douchebag. Please don't troll this thread as you have only fantasy to share.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


and speaking of trolling around, Hollie is back making use of the only argument she knows.....its a shame she can't find a circumstance where it's usable......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


you don't have to talk to me......you can just sit back and watch me talk to you.......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Ah, so your extremist beliefs grant you a special exemption from facts and evidence. Hereinafter, we'll need you to append "....because I say so" to your arguments so we"ll know they are authoritative and not subject to questioning.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm just still chuckling that you have decided to grant yourself a special exemption from any questioning of your specious claims.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I bet there's a special Hell For Morons like you. Let's all believe that's where your going, since god can't possibly be as naive as you are.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no, this thread isn't about people proving things to you.....this thread is about you ridiculing things people believe......the problem is, you've been reduced to misrepresenting what people believe and ridiculing your misrepresentation.......you dismiss anyone who corrects your errors by claiming they aren't really Christians.....that's because you've got this image in your shallow little mind of what a Christian is allowed to be and say and as long as they fit into that mold you know how to ridicule them.......when anyone else says anything you either say that they aren't a Christian or you ignore what they HAVE said and claim they said something else like you just did with Merriweather.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you mean claims like "single celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms".......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


so, do you just believe in special Hells or do you believe in all of them?.......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Well, yeah. Can you identify for us how the Gawds did it? 

The transition from single to multi-cellular has been studied. 

Show us the peer reviewed studies for a 6,000 year old earth and dinosaurs on the Ark.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


If you don't think that the bible is the word of god, you're not a Christian. Go look at the OP, I'm asking for proof of the flood. You have none, we get it. Now please


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

Pezz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Why?
> ...



I didn't just hear the stories once and determine they were bullshit immediately.  It took years to figure it out.  Perhaps one day it'll dawn on you too.

A lie is a lie no matter how good it makes you feel or how good you think it is for you/us.  

But I'm ok with you believing whatever you want to believe as long as it doesn't affect me or the society I live in.  Unfortunately theists do affect me.  Maybe Christian aren't as bad as ISIS but they are still bad.

And yes I know theists do a lot of good.  So do atheists.  In other words, god is not necessary and it is keeping you from truly understanding reality.  Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

_“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins

The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


----------



## Meriweather (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> Ok, I hear what you're saying, when god told Noah he was going to flood the whole earth and drown everyone except those on his skiff, god was just joking around, and he didn't really mean what he said. So the bible ISN'T the word of god?



Grin.  It may be quibbling, but God said he would flood the earth, not flood the whole earth.  Now, had God said the 'whole earth' or 'the planet' I wouldn't be able to quibble.  As it stands, I could say, "I am going to flood the earth," while picturing a particular section of dry earth in my garden.   Remember, too, the Bible is God inspired, not God-written.  Man wrote the Bible, and the story had to be also told with his understanding and perceptions.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I hear what you're saying, when god told Noah he was going to flood the whole earth and drown everyone except those on his skiff, god was just joking around, and he didn't really mean what he said. So the bible ISN'T the word of god?
> ...


So the bible ISN'T the word of god, just god-inspired? So Jesus never existed?


----------



## Meriweather (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> So the bible ISN'T the word of god, just god-inspired? So Jesus never existed?



The Bible is God inspired.  Jesus existed.


----------



## Taz (Nov 1, 2014)

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So the bible ISN'T the word of god, just god-inspired? So Jesus never existed?
> ...


How do you know Jesus existed? You don't believe most of the bible, why do you believe that part? Because it gives you a warm and fuzzy feel? Any particular reason?


----------



## Meriweather (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> How do you know Jesus existed? You don't believe most of the bible, why do you believe that part? Because it gives you a warm and fuzzy feel? Any particular reason?



Ah!  Because I believe the great flood covered the earth, but not the whole earth, I don't believe in the Bible?  Here is another one for you, if you really want to pound nails into my coffin:  I am of the opinion the Genesis story is the story of mankind, not the story of a single character.  I think it more likely that Adam represented the first tribe of man, and other tribes split off from there (Cain, Abel, Seth...)  I believe the Book of Job, rather than being a story about one single character, was a play (and a very popular one) that addressed bad things happening to good people. I can also see possible indications in the story of Barabbas that people in power may have traded Jesus of Nazareth for a Jesus the Romans had arrested.   

In other words, the Bible doesn't tell us everything.  At the time it was written, writing materials were not in plentiful supply--and most people could not read in any event.  The story had to be told in such a way that it focused on highlighting the truth or lesson that the author wished to present.  

So yes, my imagination (and information from science, archaeology and other sources), tends to fill in the finer details with many other possibilities.  The central truths in them, however, remain constant.  

Also, it is my experience that some people get warm-fuzzies from eschewing the Bible.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins


Did Richard Dawkins happen to mention why Buddhism gave him that impression?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.


Those commands you cite were spicific instructions to a given army, and to Isreal. I belong to neither.

The commands against same-sex relations is also a command given to Israel spicificaly. No gay has anything to worry about...unles they're a citizen of Israel.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





Pezz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > _“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”_ – Richard Dawkins
> ...



Buddhism is fully compatible with atheism.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 1, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Buddhism is fully compatible with atheism.


I don't understand why he would make a statment about religion when all religeons aren't the same.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

Pezz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > The god character of the Bible is a misogynistic tyrant that condones and even orders the practice of slavery, rape of women and murder of children. The moment you disagree with a single instruction of the Bible, such as the command to kill any bride who is not a virgin or any child who disrespects their parents, then you acknowledge that there exists a superior standard by which to judge moral action and thus no need to rely on an ancient, primitive and barbaric fantasy.
> ...



Well there is a reason our society is a secular one and our laws don't completely come from the bible(s).  You do get that, right?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


yet, never demonstrated......just a specious claim with a special exemption from the scientific method, I expect......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


why would you think I don't believe the bible is the word of God?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


actually, you've already told us it was one night when you got drunk with your friends.....


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



Because it is hard to believe anyone is that stupid?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your lack of a science vocabulary leaves you befuddled and unable to address the mechanisms involved.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



Not true.  We were watching the Cosmos and getting high, not drunk.  

And at the time I had already rejected Christianity and all other organized religions.  I said/felt/thought I had a personal relationship with god at that time.  Sort of like boss.  Then my atheists friends finally helped me realize there is no god.  

They did help me wake up.  It was tough love but they basically explained to me how its all in my head.  We watched youtube videos like Dawkins and other brilliant atheists and I have to say I completely agree with them now.

It takes a lot to break up with god.  I do see why it is so tough for you guys to let go of this very stupid idea that is all in your heads.  I was one of you once.  I'm so glad I'm not one of you anymore.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 1, 2014)

Luddly Neddite said:


> If we believe some, we are all the descendents of drunken incest but yeah, blacks, Native Americans, Asians, Hispanics - Where did they come from.
> 
> Since the bible thumpers don't believe in evolution, they can't say they just evolved.
> 
> Steven_R is right. Just say "god moves in mysterious ways". It covers everything.





> Steven_R is right. Just say "*god moves in mysterious ways*". It covers everything



Verily I sayeth unto thee that the bowel movements of thine Lord are of no consequence to sinful mortals. 
Entrails 7:19


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 1, 2014)

Interesting little aside I read a couple of days ago.  Given the dimensions of the Ark, it's capacity would have equaled that of 522 railroad cars. The Ark was hardly one's typical little farm pond boat.


----------



## sealybobo (Nov 1, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Interesting little aside I read a couple of days ago.  Given the dimensions of the Ark, it's capacity would have equaled that of 522 railroad cars. The Ark was hardly one's typical little farm pond boat.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 1, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


drugs move in mysterious ways........


----------



## Taz (Nov 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


If you do, then this is what god said: "
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. "
So if God said that, where did Asians, indians, pigmies, eskimos, latinos, bushmen, ... all come from? And where is proof that the whole world was flooded? Evolution didn't have enough time between the flood and now to evolve all these races... Please explain. Coherently if possible, and not any of your usual deflections.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 2, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


???....its obvious enough, they came from the survivors of the flood.......why on earth do you think that there wasn't enough time for all the peoples of the earth to have evolved since the flood......they've all evolved since the mitochondrial Eve, as science tells us.....and she's likely the survivor of the flood the scriptures tells us about......


----------



## Taz (Nov 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


No, that eve lived what was it? 100,000 years ago? The earth of the bible isn't that old.
And where's proof of the world wide flood? Archeologists have found nothing.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 2, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


remember when you asked "what distortions"?......here.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 2, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So where's your proof of a wordwide flood?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 2, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


"proof"?.....unessential.....no one cares if its been proven to you.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



But yet, you YEC'ists vilify science for your claimed lack of proofs.

It's another of the double standards required by fundie zealots as their last gasp for belief in magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 3, 2014)

Hollie said:


> But yet, you YEC'ists


Hollie perpetuates the impression she's an idiot.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > But yet, you YEC'ists
> ...



The YEC'ist admits to his fraud.


----------



## Taz (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > But yet, you YEC'ists
> ...


Because she doesn't pick and choose parts of the bible that fit into her fantasy world? Umm... No.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 3, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


no child....because she isn't bright enough to realize I'm still not a YEC......


----------



## Taz (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So you believe the world is around 4 billion years old?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



On my............. yet your views are consistent with the YEC'ist cabal...........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 3, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


well, except for the views that make them YECs....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 3, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no idea.....its as old as its been since he created it.....doesn't matter much to me how old it is, as I'll only be around for 60-80 of them......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 3, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> no idea.....its as old as its been since he created it.....doesn't matter much to me how old it is, as I'll only be around for 60-80 of them......


I think that is an important point; the creation event is not a key issue for most believers, even YEC. Sure most take a side, but it's not something that applies in everyday life so if it's proven untrue that's no big deal.

I think the same can be said for the flood.


----------



## Taz (Nov 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Oh, one of those willful ignorance answers because otherwise your glass fantasy world develops a huge crack. Got it.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 4, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I'm curious.....how, in your mind, does "who gives a fuck" turn into "I'm afraid my world is going to crack"?.......


----------



## Taz (Nov 4, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You offer no answer, when you're very specific on other answers. Me thinks that you realized that what you originally believed about the age of the earth couldn't be possible, and now you've yet to decide which way your fantasy world will turn next. Am I close?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 4, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


close to being a fucking idiot?.....son, you are THERE!......


----------



## Taz (Nov 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Ahh, I see that I'm spot on!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 5, 2014)

you're taking debating lessons from Hollie, aren't you.......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> you're taking debating lessons from Hollie, aren't you.......


You're befuddled, as usual.


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 5, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...




Hold it--re you talking about in terms of Technology today, Or in terms of Technology, in say 3000 BC?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Nov 5, 2014)

I'm not talking about technology at any period.  It's numbers.  Just as the population of animals  at Noah's time was considerably smaller than what we have today, what you refer to as population slow down due to available  resources is called starving to death.  Because we consistently grow in numbers.  There used to 5 billion of us. Then 6.  Now 7.   Malthus suggested global war every so often to curtail our growth in the 1700's.   Abortionists try to curb it.  Oprah, feeling left out after her help with the Obama campaign, and not being invited to the *global *summits of the rich and famous was given her own 3-G population initiative. Reducing populations by abortions was high on the list.  It has *nothing* to do with woman's rights, that is just how it is packaged for global promotion.
The globalists know what's  coming and are buying up the world's fresh water to control our water supply.  The World Bank, the Bushes, Clintons, all looking forward to mass control of society.  Nestle is draining one of the Great Lakes right now.
  And we do nothing.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 5, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> I'm not talking about technology at any period.  It's numbers.  Just as the population of animals  at Noah's time was considerably smaller than what we have today, what you refer to as population slow down due to available  resources is called starving to death.  Because we consistently grow in numbers.  There used to 5 billion of us. Then 6.  Now 7.   Malthus suggested global war every so often to curtail our growth in the 1700's.   Abortionists try to curb it.  Oprah, feeling left out after her help with the Obama campaign, and not being invited to the *global *summits of the rich and famous was given her own 3-G population initiative. Reducing populations by abortions was high on the list.  It has *nothing* to do with woman's rights, that is just how it is packaged for global promotion.
> The globalists know what's  coming and are buying up the world's fresh water to control our water supply.  The World Bank, the Bushes, Clintons, all looking forward to mass control of society.  Nestle is draining one of the Great Lakes right now.
> And we do nothing.....


Where do you nutbars find these whacky conspiracy theories?


----------



## Taz (Nov 5, 2014)

So how did they get kangaroos from Australia and back again afterwards?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 5, 2014)

why would they need to get kangaroos from Australia?.....were they horrible sinners?....


----------



## The Irish Ram (Nov 5, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not talking about technology at any period.  It's numbers.  Just as the population of animals  at Noah's time was considerably smaller than what we have today, what you refer to as population slow down due to available  resources is called starving to death.  Because we consistently grow in numbers.  There used to 5 billion of us. Then 6.  Now 7.   Malthus suggested global war every so often to curtail our growth in the 1700's.   Abortionists try to curb it.  Oprah, feeling left out after her help with the Obama campaign, and not being invited to the *global *summits of the rich and famous was given her own 3-G population initiative. Reducing populations by abortions was high on the list.  It has *nothing* to do with woman's rights, that is just how it is packaged for global promotion.
> ...



The Nightly News.........  Skip Kloe and Kortney take a shit and read up:


*Bush’s Paraguay Land Grab*
by CP News Wire
Asuncion, Paraguay.

The land grab project of U.S. President George W. Bush in Chaco, Paraguay, has generated considerable discomfort both politically and environmentally.

The news circulating the continent about plans to buy 98,840 acres of land in Chaco, Paraguay, near the Triple Frontier (Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay) is the talk of the town in these countries.

Although official sources have not confirmed the information that is already public, the land is reportedly located in Paso de Patria, near Bolivian gas reserves and the Guarani indigenous water region, within the Triple Border.

Alto Paraguay Gov. Erasmo Rodriguez Acosta revealed he heard that part of the land purchase consists of an ecological reserve (Fundacion Patria), with which Bush is affiliated.

In its interview with Rodriguez Acosta, neike.com.py reported that he does not have documentation of this affiliation and it could not communicate either with the foundation or with the National Rural Development and Land Institute, in charge of these state lands.

Concern increased last week with the arrival of Bush’s daughter, Jenna, and a source from the Physical Planning Department saying that most of the Chaco region belongs to private companies.

Luis D’Elia, Argentina´s undersecretary for Land for Social Habitat, says the matter raises regional concern because it threatens local natural resources.

He termed it "surprising" that the Bush family is trying to settle a few short miles from the US Mariscal Estigarribia Military Base.

Argentinean Adolfo Perez Esquivel warned that the real war will be fought not for oil, but for water, and recalled that Acuifero Guaraní is one of the largest underground water reserves in South America, running beneath Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (larger than Texas and California together).

"The southern U.S. states are already struggling with water shortages," asserted the 1980 Nobel Peace Prizewinner.

Orlando Castillo, Paraguay Peace and Justice Service member, recalled the US military buildup in Chaco under a bilateral agreement.

This article originally appeared in Prensa Latina.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 5, 2014)

Taz said:


> So how did they get kangaroos from Australia and back again afterwards?



Cheeze!  Don't you have a frequent flyer card?  You should get one.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 5, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not talking about technology at any period.  It's numbers.  Just as the population of animals  at Noah's time was considerably smaller than what we have today, what you refer to as population slow down due to available  resources is called starving to death.  Because we consistently grow in numbers.  There used to 5 billion of us. Then 6.  Now 7.   Malthus suggested global war every so often to curtail our growth in the 1700's.   Abortionists try to curb it.  Oprah, feeling left out after her help with the Obama campaign, and not being invited to the *global *summits of the rich and famous was given her own 3-G population initiative. Reducing populations by abortions was high on the list.  It has *nothing* to do with woman's rights, that is just how it is packaged for global promotion.
> ...



From you Liberals. Remember?  You guys claimed Bush and Cheney did the Twin Towers thingy. Let's see. There's Al Gore's global warming thing.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 5, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



It is. This virtual world we live in is dying. One day the whole universe will die. Evolution produces chaos and death, it does not improve things.
If from nothing else, the universe will die from thermal equality. Heat moves toward cold. When this heat transfer is completed, the universe will die.
Get ready. Get a coat. Pay your insurance premiums.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 6, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...


You hyper-religious types do love your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 6, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Marshall Applewhite called. He has your travel itinerary.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 6, 2014)

The Irish Ram said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Irish Ram said:
> ...



Such are the wages of _Hyper-Religious Syndrome_ among the conspiracy theory addled.


----------



## Taz (Nov 6, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> why would they need to get kangaroos from Australia?.....were they horrible sinners?....


Worldwide flood, It says so in the bible. Word of God. Honest.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 7, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > why would they need to get kangaroos from Australia?.....were they horrible sinners?....
> ...


so you believe in interpreting the bible literally?.......how many generations separated Adam and Noah.......what is the approximate number of people that could be alive over that many generations........would it be necessary to flood Australia to kill all 15,000?.........(note: since the aborigines are among those who have a flood story, keep in mind that they too believe they are descendants of flood survivors)......


----------



## Taz (Nov 7, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Australia already had abos on it back then. So God would have had to flood it. And abos would have had to be on the boat to be alive today. Anyways, how do you flood just, say, Europe for 40 days to the top of the Alps, and nowhere else?
If you don't take the bible at its word, what are you believing in?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 8, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


back when?.......



Taz said:


> . And abos would have had to be on the boat to be alive today.


no, just the folks they descended from.....the ones who passed down their flood legend to them.....



Taz said:


> If you don't take the bible at its word, what are you believing in?


what the Bible is there to communicate to us.....which can be summarized in just three words....creation, fall, redemption......I don't really care how many horses Solomon had in his stables, how many doves Noah had on his ark, how many signs of the second coming you scribe within the eye of a needle as you're passing through.....I'll leave all that for you to abuse.....


----------



## k2skier (Nov 8, 2014)

As the Myth goes, the Ark was 300 cubits X 50 X 30.

Over 520 feet long. The longest wooden ships real men ever built were just over 300 feet long.

Common Sense Versus The Bible The Bible Knows Nothing of Science

The Impossible Voyage of Noah s Ark NCSE

The cute little story fails on so many levels...


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 8, 2014)

k2skier said:


> As the Myth goes, the Ark was 300 cubits X 50 X 30.
> 
> Over 520 feet long. The longest wooden ships real men ever built were just over 300 feet long.
> 
> ...


Which cubit are you using?

And of course the bible doesn't know any science, it's a book, it doesn't know anything, and even if books could think science hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## Taz (Nov 9, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Abos in Oz have been there roughly 50,000 years, meaning that they existed long before that as well. The bible doesn't place the world that old, and which animal didn't kangaroos and wallabies descend from? Btw, where do you situated the flood in time? How many thousands of years ago was it, and is there any archeological proof to back up your position?


----------



## indiajo (Nov 9, 2014)

Taz said:


> Anyways, how do you flood just, say, Europe for 40 days to the top of the Alps, and nowhere else?
> If you don't take the bible at its word, what are you believing in?



Well, the flood hit only the scumyards of the Middle East. Not Europe.
We had Thor. The god with the hammer.


----------



## indiajo (Nov 9, 2014)

Taz said:


> [ Btw, where do you situated the flood in time? How many thousands of years ago was it, and is there any archeological proof to back up your position?



Various. We only do not know exactly which one lead to the flood mystery in the middle east.

1. We have Santorin. The completely blown up island volcano must have caused a giant tsunami that hit the coastline of the complete eastern Mediteranean. About 1600 B.C.

2. The breakdown of the Dardanelles barrier and subsequent flooding of the black sea.
The original black sea level was around 100 to 150 meters lower than today.
Happened around 7500 years ago. Someone pulled a giant plug out of a giant bathtub.

You see, a lot of floods were going on then.


----------



## Taz (Nov 9, 2014)

indiajo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > [ Btw, where do you situated the flood in time? How many thousands of years ago was it, and is there any archeological proof to back up your position?
> ...


A lot of floods? Those two were 6000 years apart!!! Plus, where's Noah's global flood? Proof?


----------



## Taz (Nov 9, 2014)

indiajo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Anyways, how do you flood just, say, Europe for 40 days to the top of the Alps, and nowhere else?
> ...


Thor is a fucking cartoon.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 9, 2014)

Taz said:


> The bible doesn't place the world that old


the bible doesn't place the date of the flood anywhere.......some guy name Usscher tried, but he made several significant mistakes.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 9, 2014)

Taz said:


> Btw, where do you situated the flood in time?


??....still having short term memory problems?......approximately the same time as the origin of mitochondrial Eve.....I believe science currently pegs that around 90-120k years ago.....


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 9, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, where do you situated the flood in time?
> ...



If you are speaking of Noah's flood, try 2313 B.C.


----------



## Taz (Nov 9, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, where do you situated the flood in time?
> ...


Any archeological proof of said worldwide flood?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 9, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The bible doesn't place the world that old
> ...


How strange. An event that allegedly involved your serial mass murderer gawds wiping all of humanity from the planet except for Noah and his immediate family, yet no one marked their desktop calendar.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 9, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Btw, where do you situated the flood in time?
> ...


There's no archeological data to support your baseless claim.

Getting your science from christian creationist ministries will always make you the Village Idiot.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 9, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Come on Taz. You know perfectly well there is plenty of proof for a global flood. You know they have discovered seashells on top of Mount Everest and that marine skeletons and seashells are found buried in mud sediment all over the world. If you really are not aware of such findings, you really should look it up on the internet just for your own education and satisfaction. The flood actually happened. It formed the Grand Canyon.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 9, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You should try to get a little education from some source yourself. Any source at all would be an improvement for you.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The fact is, there is no archeological data to support the biblical flood tale. 

It's been pointed out repeatedly that cultures existing at the time of the alleged flood have no record of the event. 

To insist that the biblical flood took place in spite of a total lack of evidence  for the event suggests you're simply a slave to dogma.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Complete nonsense.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


no, he asked what I believed, not what you believe......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


what world wide flood....the one I'm referring to was localized and just killed those folks alive at the time.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


actually, nearly every continent has indigenous peoples who've passed down the stories from their ancestors desktop calendars.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That is correct which is from the data I gave you. None of which has anything to do with the Noah fable which is unsupportable with respect to archeological and historical data.


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


About a worldwide flood that murdered everyone except a few white folks? Ya, sure they do.


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


OK, so you don't believe in the bible. From Genesis:  “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


HOLY CRAP!!!!!! That's a lot of dumb shit for such a short post! You never heard of plate techtonics pushing up Everest and that it moves a little each year? Noah's flood formed the Grand Canyon? Ever heard of erosion? And just curious, where did all the water go?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Indeed I have heard of erosion. Erosion does not necessarily require your millions of years. Erosion can happen very suddenly. Ever see the results of a flash flood?

The top of the Grand Canyon is over 4,000 feet higher than it is where it enters the canyon. That means the river would have had to flow UPHILL for millions of years to support your claim. That doesn't happen in the real world. In contrast to all other rivers, we find the Colorado has no delta ( a place where washed out mud is deposited.) Had it washed out all this earth over millions of years, there would of necessity  the requirement of a rather large delta.

Today we see two large beach lines at the top of the canyon. This means that before the flood there were two large lakes at the top of the canyon. These lakes overfilled and spilled very fast in a VERTICAL down-flow, not in a horizontal direction. This resulted in the steep sharp edges and high vertical cliffs of the canyon instead of the rounded gradual slopes normally found as result of a horizontal flow. The Grand Canyon was actually formed in a very short period of time caused by a tremendous quantity of water spilling over the broken walls of two lakes.

You shifting plates do not address the discovery of seashells on top of Everest. Do you realize Everest is quite some distance from an ocean?  My father-in-law used to operate a front-end loader for the county. He was loading dump trucks with red clay from a huge clay quarry when he cut into the quarry bank and found oyster shells embedded in the red clay bank. That quarry is some 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.

Where did all the water go?  A lot of it is still with us. They call them oceans, seas, gulf, lakes, etc. Most of the earth is still covered with water. Some of the ocean is quite deep, from seven to twelve miles deep in places. The world before the flood had very little seas if any. At present it is very dry in Pensacola where I live. I have to add water to my swimming pool a couple of times a week. This is called evaporation. The water from my pool may be deposited upon New York City by the way of rain or snow fall one day.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Why marvel that people all over the world had their "flood stories"?  The reason should be quite obvious.

Many peoples have stories about their warrior heroes that they sat around the camp fires and recounted until the stories and feats of their heroes grew in proportion to the imagination boundaries of the story teller. The American Indians passed their tales on to generation after generation by word of mouth.
Stories of a flood are found among different peoples from South America to the South Sea Islands to Australia to Paupa, New Guinea, to Japan, china, India, the Middle East,  Europe to Africa. Those stories closest to the area of the dispersal (Babel)  are also the closest in detail to the Biblical account, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The world was populated by the three sons of Noah following the flood. All these people pretty much banded together at Babel until the Lord finally divided the earth in the days of Peleg and scattered the people and caused them to speak different languages. Since all peoples of the earth are directly descended from Noah's three sons, why marvel at all that all of them had heard the flood story?


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Why marvel that people all over the world had their "flood stories"?  The reason should be quite obvious.
> 
> Many peoples have stories about their warrior heroes that they sat around the camp fires and recounted until the stories and feats of their heroes grew in proportion to the imagination boundaries of the story teller. The American Indians passed their tales on to generation after generation by word of mouth.
> Stories of a flood are found among different peoples from South America to the South Sea Islands to Australia to Paupa, New Guinea, to Japan, china, India, the Middle East,  Europe to Africa. Those stories closest to the area of the dispersal (Babel)  are also the closest in detail to the Biblical account, especially the Epic of Gilgamesh.
> ...


Now please tell us about the one with goldie locks and the three bears?


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


The plate that Mt Everest sits on was once at the bottom of an ocean, but the plate with India on it crashed into that plate, pushing it into mountains.
Your Grand canyon story is not supported by archeological fact.
Where did all the water drain to?
When do YOU date the flood to?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



What ocean?  Give me some argument.  I have no argument that at the time of the flood Everest wasn't nearly as high as it is now. I totally agree. Even though it was not as high it still had a top to it. That same top has only gotten pushed upward.  Show me something that says Everest was once at the bottom of some ocean and please name that ocean.

If the earth had a flat surface now with the depths of the ocean being only a few feet deep, then the water in the oceans would cover the earth. That is a scientific fact.

My Grand Canyon story is supported not only by fact but by common sense. That river never flowed uphill.

Actually, the Bible somewhat supports the idea that this earth has endured two global floods in its history.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Why marvel that people all over the world had their "flood stories"?  The reason should be quite obvious.
> ...



No real answers just going juvenile again.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


What "facts" support your Grand Canyon theory?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Why don't you simply read the post?  Ever hear of common sense?  Some folks have it. Do rivers flow uphill?  Does slow erosion produce sharp cliffs? Where is the Colorado River delta?  These are common sense items that must be answered.

Show me your argument. I've shown you mine.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You claimed "facts" supported your Grand Canyon theory.  I still see no facts being presented.


----------



## ninja007 (Nov 10, 2014)

yep


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....actually, I suspect I had that data before you were even born......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


???....actually, I suspect I had that data before you were even born......


Taz said:


> About a worldwide flood that murdered everyone except a few white folks? Ya, sure they do.


everyone except their ancestors......everyone's ancestors.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> OK, so you don't believe in the bible.


yes.....I do.....I just don't believe in YOU......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Pointless.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I showed you my argument. It's up to you to dispute my argument.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Pointless???  Makes perfect sense because that's exactly what happened.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Your opinion is not fact. You claimed to have facts.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Here are facts that render Ark tales as merely superstitious fables.

Problems with a Global Flood 2nd edition


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



We were speaking about a flood, not an ark.  As far as wooden ships, many have been built. Columbus sailed on three. The Vikings used them extensively. That link is a sieve it's so full of holes.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The fact is that in order for the Grand Canyon to have been formed by a millions of years old erosion process, the Colorado River would have had to have flowed uphill for millions of years. Fact 2 is that the rim of the canyon would have eroded away in a rounded fashion instead of a sharply defined fashion denoting a fast overflow of a tremendous amount of water.

Now dispute those two little facts. Prove a gravitational reversal of the river's flow.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


What flood? There is no evidence of a global flood per the Ark take.

I don't recall the Vikings ever claiming to have gathered two of every kind of animal on a pleasure cruise. 

What holes in the link? Be specific. 

Otherwise, please address the anomaly of cultures and civilizations existing at the time of your Ark tales that have no record of any global flood.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


What gravitational reversal? Why do you believe the Colorado river would have flowed "uphill"?

Why do you believe the canyon would have eroded as you claim it would have had to?

Let me guess. Are those "facts" you read on the ICR website?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I have already addressed the cultures who have flood tales and so has Postmodern. addressed them. No one said anything about the Vikings having animals on board. Your article made a wild uneducated and totally asinine claim that wood was not a good product for boat building when most of the world was explored and settle by people sailing wooden boats. When I see something totally stupid like that, I dismiss the whole thesis.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Why don't you read my post on the Grand Canyon?  Why do you expect me to repost it for you?


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > OK, so you don't believe in the bible.
> ...


It was a worldwide flood, which you don't believe in. So you don't believe the bible.


----------



## Taz (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Show us links to real scientist who believe this.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Other cultures gave flood tales.

Here's another opportunity not to sidestep the problem of other cultures having no record of a global flood that coincided with the biblical Ark tale. 

Why did the Egyptians not record a global flood?

I think missed the part of the article I linked that identified the absurdity of a wooden boat as described in the Ark tale. From the link:

"..... Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I gave you many examples of cultures that spoke of a global flood. I don't know why the Egyptians either did or didn't. The point is that many did.

As far a wooden ship taking heavy seas, even Columbus rode out a hurricane losing the Pinta. Of course wooden ships can take heavy seas. Who knows really whether the ark utilized any metal or not. Tubal Cain was a worker in brass and other metals. There was certainly some knowledge of working with metals long before Noah built the ark.

Your link makes a lot of assumptions. It assumes dinosaurs had to be aboard the ark. Not so at all. The only reference to anything that might be argued to have been a dinosaur appeared in the Book of Job. This is highly argumentative. Many claim Job was speaking of a huge Nile crocodile. Science is pretty much in agreement that dinosaurs were pretty much extinct by the time of the flood.

We have no way of knowing at all either the kinds nor the quantities of animals on board the ark. The Bible doesn't provide a ship's manifest. As far as the food of the animals on board, who's to say they all just didn't eat grass or hay?  The authorization to kill and eat meat was given after the flood.

The link is conjecture and assumptions about which the Bible does not address.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Dispute what I've posted first. I'm not here to do your bidding.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


 
Another sidestep. 

Why did the Egyptians, and the Maya never have a record of the biblical flood?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



We have no factual data that Noah built an Ark.

Other than biblical tales and fables, what evidence is there of Noah's Ark?

From my linked article:

*How was the fossil record sorted in an order convenient for evolution?* Ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape fail to explain:


the extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?
the relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. (Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?)
why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata.
why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted.
why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?
how coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them.
why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata.
why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted. [Crimes & Droser, 1992]
why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata. If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?
why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants [Stewart, 1983].
why ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata. Was the pollen hydraulically sorted by the flood water so that the climatic evidence is different for each layer?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



A lot of what you post here and assume to be from this earth age were clearly from the first earth age. There is ONE world. We are living in the second earth age, some say the third for they count the time from the Bible's creation week to Noah as a second earth age and the time from Noah to now as a third earth age. It makes little difference. I simply count two with the Bible's creation week being the same one as this one in which we live because not everyone was destroyed, Noah and his family (8) crossed over. This present earth age is some 6,000 years in existence. The previous earth age, when the earth was originally created was according to science, some 4.5 billion years ago. I say it was even before that.

Who cares about pollen? Your own DNA carries a digital signature that is so complicated and so unique that it had to be of intelligent design.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Holly, I really don't care why they didn't. Many others did. Remember the Epic of Gilgamesh?  That one is well documented. That came from the Mesopotamia Valley and follows the Biblical account amazingly close.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You don't care why the Egyptians, and the Maya never had a record of the biblical flood? That's remarkable. How is it that there is archeological data from many civilizations that somehow survived a global flood? How do you reconcile that?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Where did you get this conception of multiple earth ages? 

Similarly, where did you get the conception that DNA is so complicated it had to be of "intelligent design". That's boilerplate christan fundamentalism and Is totally unsupported.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Do the Philadelphians have a flood story?  How about New Yorkers?  No, I have stated before, I really don't care.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 10, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That makes no sense. 

I can understand that you don't care because to actually address the contradiction would be devastating to the biblical tales. It's just a fact that a great many cultures existed at the time of the biblical flood and they managed, somehow, to have survived that event. 

Doesn't accuracy and integrity cause you any concern regarding some grossly contradictory recordings of history?


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 10, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




They don't
They just believe

Even when it is obvious that the story is heavily symbolic.


----------



## Taz (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I can't dispute made up shit. Post a link to a real source so we know that this isn't just one of your fantasies, and so I'll have something to dispute.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> How strange. An event that allegedly involved your serial mass murderer gawds wiping all of humanity from the planet except for Noah and his immediate family, yet no one marked their desktop calendar.


Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > How strange. An event that allegedly involved your serial mass murderer gawds wiping all of humanity from the planet except for Noah and his immediate family, yet no one marked their desktop calendar.
> ...


The ICR? Tell me you're not serious about those charlatans. Even if you are, lie to me and tell you're not. 

Flood stories deriving from the end of the last Ice Age would account for the rakes and fables.

Still unaddressed is how cultures that existed at the time of the biblical flood tale survived the alleged flood without any mention of such an event.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Isn't it frustrating that in the 21st century we still have to fight this battle with fundamentalist believers in ancient myth and fable? And no we can't just ignore them because they want to codify their biblical "morality" in the laws of the land. Abortion disturbs us all but they want to make it criminal because a "soul" enters the diploid cell at fertilization. Same reason to outlaw stem cell research. They want laws on the books controlling sexual behavior because of some ancient scribe's notion of propriety. Same for marriage laws. They want to teach a creation myth along side, or instead of real science. The list of why we have to keep fighting this battle goes on and on even though such childish ideas should have been put aside by the human race, oh say at least around the time of Galileo Galilei in the 16th century. It's so frustrating.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


you realize you're talking to Hollie, right?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I don't believe the Bible tells us Mt. Everest was inundated.....that does not  mean I don't believe the Bible.....I just don't believe your interpretations of it.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Another sidestep.
> 
> Why did the Egyptians, and the Maya never have a record of the biblical flood?



????.....The Egyptian creation myth is said to have its beginning when the people watched the dark waters of the Nile flood the land. - See more at: The Egyptian Creation Myth The Birth Of The Earth

*Flood*

These new humans did not last long. Because they did not have souls or minds, they did not praise Heart of Sky as had been hoped. Also, humanity quickly forgot the source of their creation. The creator was angered by this and sent floods to destroy what they believed to be another failed attempt at creating the race of men.

*Similarity to Other Myths*

The Mayan flood myth is very similar to other flood myths. Many cultures tell of the gods' unhappiness with their first attempt at creating humanity and the destruction of all but a few of the new creations by a world wide flood.



Read more : Mayan Indian Flood Myth eHow


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> [  It's just a fact that a great many cultures existed at the time of the biblical flood and they managed, somehow, to have survived that event.


the cultures didn't exist at the time of the flood.....the peoples that formed those cultures descended from those who survived the event......


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You realize that you're ill-equipped, right?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> *Still unaddressed* is how cultures that existed at the time of the biblical flood tale survived the alleged flood without any mention of such an event.


I addressed that 3 weeks ago.

Cultures that existed at the time of the biblical flood tale survived because the flood was a large but _regional_ event. Those cultures were never threatened in the first place for you to need to wonder how they survived.

Even the link I gave said that 83% of all versions of the flood story say it was _regional_. That's why I picked that source, because if they're going to be biased in any direction they're going to be biased in favor of a global flood, but even they say it was regional.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > [  It's just a fact that a great many cultures existed at the time of the biblical flood and they managed, somehow, to have survived that event.
> ...


Nonsense. Many cultures existed at the time of the Noah tale. Why is it so difficult for you to be honest and admit that you simply have no explanation for why those cultures have no record of the silly biblical flood.

There were a number of existing cultures at the time of Noah's cruise. They were: the Minoan, Mesopotamia, the area around what is now Israel, the Indus Valley, China and Egypt. Archaeological data such as ruins of cities, pottery, tools, weapons, skeletal remains and other artifacts of civilization such as books and written records leave no doubt as to the existence of those cultures. Those cultures existed and continued to exist after the biblical flood tale. 

So what's your best conspiracy theory to explain that away?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> Isn't it frustrating that in the 21st century we still have to fight this battle with fundamentalist believers in ancient myth and fable? And no we can't just ignore them because they want to codify their biblical "morality" in the laws of the land. Abortion disturbs us all but they want to make it criminal because a "soul" enters the diploid cell at fertilization. Same reason to outlaw stem cell research. They want laws on the books controlling sexual behavior because of some ancient scribe's notion of propriety. Same for marriage laws. They want to teach a creation myth along side, or instead of real science. The list of why we have to keep fighting this battle goes on and on even though such childish ideas should have been put aside by the human race, oh say at least around the time of Galileo Galilei in the 16th century. It's so frustrating.


Those battles aren't fought, won or lost on discussion forums.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > *Still unaddressed* is how cultures that existed at the time of the biblical flood tale survived the alleged flood without any mention of such an event.
> ...


So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't it frustrating that in the 21st century we still have to fight this battle with fundamentalist believers in ancient myth and fable? And no we can't just ignore them because they want to codify their biblical "morality" in the laws of the land. Abortion disturbs us all but they want to make it criminal because a "soul" enters the diploid cell at fertilization. Same reason to outlaw stem cell research. They want laws on the books controlling sexual behavior because of some ancient scribe's notion of propriety. Same for marriage laws. They want to teach a creation myth along side, or instead of real science. The list of why we have to keep fighting this battle goes on and on even though such childish ideas should have been put aside by the human race, oh say at least around the time of Galileo Galilei in the 16th century. It's so frustrating.
> ...


In part, they are.


PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Another sidestep.
> ...


The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding. 

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth The Story of the Nile

There's no magical or supernatural acts of any gawds taking place.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.


The bible says "whole earth" which comes from the Hebrew "kol erets" which means local area or region unless a specific place is named immediately before "kol erets". There are instances in the bible where "kol erets" _is_ referring to the entire planet and it names the planet right before "kol erets" or uses different wording. This is not the case with the flood. With the flood, the bible says the whole region was under water, which is perfectly possible given that the region in question is subject to frequint flooding even in modern times.


----------



## Taz (Nov 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So you don't believe this: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. " ?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding.
> 
> BBC - History - Ancient History in depth The Story of the Nile
> 
> There's no magical or supernatural acts of any gawds taking place.


How would a bronze-age civilization who had no sciences know that?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.
> ...


Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?

If "whole earth" doesn't mean "whole earth" then why would the gawds allow such confusion. 

And you are incorrect, "kol erets" is from the Latin meaning "the gawds have played a cruel joke on you".


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The Nile Delta is the result of seasonal flooding.
> ...



Because the flooding of the Nile was a seasonal event.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?


I'm disregarding them, for the most part. You should too. There are hundreds if not thousands of versions of the flood story from all over the world and not one of them is perfectly literally accurate. The majority of them say it was a regional event, and the bible says it was a regional event.



Hollie said:


> If "whole earth" doesn't mean "whole earth" then why would the gawds allow such confusion.


 For the same reason god allows rape and murder, I suppose, whatever that reason may be.



Hollie said:


> And you are incorrect, "kol erets" is from the Latin meaning "the gawds have played a cruel joke on you".


Not true: The Genesis Flood Why the Bible Says It Must be Local


----------



## Taz (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Are you editing newly revised versions of the various bibles?
> ...


This is what the bible says: 
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> This is what the bible says:
> "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
> or this: "So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. "


Exactly. Nowhere in what you quoted did it say the _entire planet_. It just says 'earth', which means land, dirt. The people of Noah's time had no concept of what a planet even is to then make a story about one. Psalms 104;9 verifies that the flood was not global. The planet was completely covered in water only once, before any dry land first appeared millions of years ago.


----------



## Taz (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > This is what the bible says:
> ...


Geez, you're fucking dense. God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > This is what the bible says:
> ...


Are the gawds aware that you are re-writing the bibles?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Psalms 104;9 says it wasn't a global event, so if you're taking the bible at face value then it was not a global event, and if you're not taking the bible at face value then it doesn't matter the bible says at all.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Are the gawds aware that you are re-writing the bibles?


I don't know what a "gawd" is but I haven't rewritten anything.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 11, 2014)

There was no 'Noah,' no 'flood,' no 'ark' – it's all fantasy and fable, myths and legends; indeed, the bible flood myth was clearly appropriated from Gilgamesh.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Surely even you have heard of "timelines".  We establish timelines for many things. The Bronze Age is a timeline, the Iron Age is a timeline. It's common practice.

This is not my original link to the DNA thing I previously posted but it will serve the same purpose. Intelligent Design


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well, I really don't know what to tell you except that I truly really could care less. Your argument falls on sand is why I don't care.

Wikipedia says the Mayan Civilization (that's a joke) came about around 2000 BC.  That means that civilization (same joke) came about some 300 years after the flood. We created the United States in less time.

Your Egyptians control their own history. The Egyptians base their history on chronology of their pharaohs or kings. They have always gotten them confused since many of them had the same name and they had so many. They made everybody a kind. I believe even Job was made a king in Egypt. They had greater kings and lesser kings. If you owned three camels you were a greater king. Two camels got you a lesser kingship.

The Mayans do tend to prove the Chaos Theory of Evolution. They became heathens. They got into cannibalism and the priests skinned out people and dressed themselves in the skins. They finally about died out. They probably got hold of some bad hamburger.

All of these people hated God. The reason given for building the Tower of Babel was that they didn't trust God's promise not to send another flood so they built the Tower to escape another flood. Both the Egyptians and the Mayans began to build pyramids again in defiance of God and to worship other Gods including the sun.

I hope this answers your question as to why I'm really not concerned with the Egyptians and the Mayans. Civilization began again at the Tower of Babel in present day Iraq.  Egypt is not all that far away. The Bible gives a fairly clear detail of how the people dispersed.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Actually, whether you believe it or not concerns me not.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > So there was no global flood as identified in the bibles. I'm not sure where you got your "83%" number, but the bibles don't identify any regional flood.
> ...



Unless we simply apply common sense.

Common sense tells me that were the flood simply a local thing, the people could have simply continued to walk away from the rising water until they escaped it up a mountain or upon reaching an area that was not to be flooded.

Common sense also tells me that there would have been no need for any birds to be taken on board the ark. The birds could have simply flow to an area beyond the flood.  The animals also could have moved to an area outside the flood line.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



LOL!! There are tons of things that don't make sense to you Hollie.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Unless we simply apply common sense.
> 
> Common sense tells me that were the flood simply a local thing, the people could have simply continued to walk away from the rising water until they escaped it up a mountain or upon reaching an area that was not to be flooded.
> 
> Common sense also tells me that there would have been no need for any birds to be taken on board the ark. The birds could have simply flow to an area beyond the flood.  The animals also could have moved to an area outside the flood line.


Common sense says their lings would have exploded from the resulting atmospheric pressure if the water had threatened the mountains.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


And yet, both the Maya and the Egyptians, (among others), somehow managed to avoid any mention of a global, humanity wiping event as described in the various bibles.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Unless we simply apply common sense.
> ...



The waters certainly threatened the mountains for they were covered. It was a global flood.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That's true. Claims to man-made inventions of magic / supernatural gawds make no sense to me, especially when the worshippers of those gawds are unable to account for even the most basic of attributes describing those gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Which makes the Ark tale unnecessary and superfluous.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



So?  They hated God. Some of the pharaohs even proclaimed themselves to be gods. Perhaps the destroyed any documentation or forbade any mention of it.  Who knows? Who cares?  The point is both the Mayan civilization and the Egyptian civilizations came into being after the flood.

You are correct that there were other civilizations on earth before the flood. These all perished in the flood however. Now, after the flood these lands were repopulated again.  Excavations at Jerico have unearthed some 23 different times that city has been settled. Some of these are from before the flood.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The fact that God is omnipotent, omnipresent,  and omniscience doesn't satisfy your definition of attributes?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Intelligent design is not a theory. It's another name for christian fundamentalism. It is not a theory that meets any standard relative to the Scientific Method. It has not gained currency in any scientific field because  it has no connection with the standards that science is held to. We have specific tools that allow us to discriminate between viable theories and those that are not. The discipline of the Scientific Method is the single most powerful and productive tool to discriminate between viable theories and those which are not. The tools of the Scientific Method are advancing of the human search for knowledge because these tools actually work. While never providing “proof,” they demonstrably move us incrementally towards objective truth. If they did not, then science would not have changed our world as it has, for better or worse.

The tools that science uses to discriminate between good theories and bad ones are twofold; evidence and reason. A theory that has vast amounts of evidence in its support, and also makes useful predictions or retrodictions when reasoning from it is a viable theory. A religious claim in a burqa of lies called "intelligent design" which has no evidence, makes no predictions and simply appeals to ancient fears and superstitions is not a viable theory.

And this is how we discriminate between viable theories vs. religious claims that appeal only to emotion and fear. 

My preference is based on using the tools of evidence and reason that allow any objective analyst to discriminate between my position and yours. You preference is based (as you explicitly define) purely on which best fits your a priori religious commitment.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Nonsense. The archeological and historic data show that many cultures and civilizations existed both before and after the biblical flood tale.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Those are attributes of the gawds that are shared by many inventions of gawds. 

If you drill down on this, why are your gawds simply reflections of earlier inventions of gawds? Of what use or need are gawds who are uninvolved? Why the requirement to opt for a sentient, intelligent, and somehow "alive" being-- what's the point? To satisfy some anthropomorphic desire? Human egotism?

There is little difference between the natural Big Bang paradigm and a “Gawds Who Are Nonexistent” paradigm. With the former you have causal "omnipotence" -- nothing is as all powerful as all of existence (i.e., gravity and the speed of light are omnipotent). But that's all you have. No "omniscience" and no "omni benevolence" or any of those extraneous human-ego attributes that you and other inventors of religions have slathered your gawds with. So why opt for the latter, and then go assigning it characteristics that deconstruct the very thing you opt for?

An invisible, undetectable, unknown and completely and perfectly uninvolved entity is synonymous with "Nothingness". So why give this nothingness human attributes?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well, Albert Einstein believed in intelligent design. That's good enough for me.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



LOL!!  I fully support a "Big Bang" theory. I believe God spoke and (BANG!!!) it was so. He created your gravity, your speed of light, all your laws of physics.
Your "science" cannot even define what is thought. Science is unable to explain how the brain functions. Actually, science cannot even cure the common cold.
Your Theory of Evolution is a theory of decay, dying, and destruction. It is a theory of chaos. Even Neanderthal man had a longer lifespan than we have. Man has steadily evolved downward, now having a lifespan of about 78 years.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Nonsense right back at you. You even had the Mayans before the flood. I can't count on anything you say. One has to check out all your wild claims.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



Mind explaining how Psalms 104.9 actually says any such thing at all?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Prove it.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



So go check them out. 

In the meantime, explain how existing civilizations / cultures existing at the time of the biblical Ark tale have no record of any global flood.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Actually, science, with the assistance of modern medicine can explain a great many things about the function of the brain.

And, the Theory of Evolution is about making predictions that can be verified. 

Don't let fear and ignorance rule your life.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Already did.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Check out what or who? What civilizations/cultures are you speaking of. Be specific. I've already done the Mayan and Egyptians for you and found you in error.

Do these civilizations/cultures even comment on Cain's murder of Abel or of the fall of Adam?

Asking why a culture doesn't comment on something is really a stupid question to ask. Did the people of Borneo comment on the passage of the ACA?  I don't know.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



THEORY.  I actually love science but I recognize our limitations in applying science. It was God who set man's limit at 100 years, not science. It takes all our little science can do to even help us to achieve that age. Science certainly hasn't extended that limit.

I even agree with you atheists that man was made out of a rock.. The Bible states that God formed Adam out of the dust of the ground. That dust could easily have been a crushed and pulverized rock. Does this and my agreement with your Big Bang Theory now make me an honorary atheist evolutionist?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Being in denial of the Egyptian and Mayan civilizations (among others), that have no history of any biblical global flood doesn't help your case.

The 5th Dynasty of Egyptian civilization began its reign at about 2,465 BCE, which was followed by the 6th Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE. 

How is it that there is no interruption of those dynasties?

Shall we look at China, next?

Sorry, but you need yet another revision to biblical history or yet more finagling with the numbers.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



There is no reason to accept your claim regarding "man's limits" as there is no reason to accept your "because I say so " claims to gawds.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Go ahead and look. 2465 is after the flood. There would be no interruption. "About 2000" doesn't cut it either. What is your "fudge factor" when you state "about"?

Saying some civilization that has long disappeared has no record of something is absurd. How do you know they never had such records? Just because none have as yet been found?  Totally without any scientific validity. In the scope of history, we just recently found the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Your arguments are about as juvenile as those atheists asking why God hasn't appeared and proven his existence to them. You people are insane.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



More stupidity. Wait and see if you live beyond God's set limit for mankind.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I can see you're in denial. It's really a shame. Not reason, not rationally, not contingent history will pull you out of your denial. 

The fact is, the biblical flood is nothing more than a fable. You can not a shred of evidence for it and you're simply going to deny the history of mant cultures existing at the time which clearly refutes biblical tales and fables.

Do you find it ironic that you use the term "scientific validity" when you're the one hoping to defend supernatural gawds?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Your gawds have set no limits.

Your hysterical claim is completely without support.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


is that your "dispute"?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


probably it would be difficult for me to "admit" that because it isn't true.....you initially claimed the Egyptians and the Mayans did not, and I gave you facts which showed you were wrong......I don't recall you responding by saying "I fucked up, sorry"......


> They were: the Minoan, Mesopotamia, the area around what is now Israel, the Indus Valley, China and Egypt.


all were post flood.....their ancestors were also flood survivors.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


yes I do, why?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


do you believe God punished the dirt for being evil or just the plants.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> It couldn't be any clearer.


is it possible for people to believe things that you do not believe?........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


no they didn't.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> The 5th Dynasty of Egyptian civilization began its reign at about 2,465 BCE, which was followed by the 6th Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE.
> 
> How is it that there is no interruption of those dynasties?


post flood......


----------



## Meriweather (Nov 11, 2014)

Taz said:


> God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.



The Hebrew language is also clear.  'Tebel' (the entire earth) was used in the creation story and the judgment of the earth.  The word 'Kol' was used to describe all of a particular region.  The word 'Tebel' does not occur in the flood account.  

We can see that holding true in the flood account itself.  Genesis 8:5 tells us that Noah could see the tops of the mountains.  Four verses later it notes the dove returned to the Ark as water covered all the earth.  If Noah could see mountain tops, then it follows all of the rest of the region was flooded--not all the earth, as mountains were no longer covered.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Of course they did.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > The 5th Dynasty of Egyptian civilization began its reign at about 2,465 BCE, which was followed by the 6th Dynasty, which ruled to about 2000 BCE.
> ...


There was no biblical flood. You can provide no evidence for the farcical biblical tale and science finds no support for the tales and fables.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 11, 2014)

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.
> ...


So just make it up as you go along. 

As the fable has no hard data to support it, believe whatever you wish.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and yet, their ancestors passed down a story of a massive flood that only those their culture descended from survived......or were you suggesting that story was passed UP instead of down....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 11, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


there are lots of things science does not support, yet it does not keep you from believing them.......


----------



## Treeshepherd (Nov 11, 2014)

I think the heavy import of the Noah story is the precarious and fragile state of life on earth.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> The waters certainly threatened the mountains for they were covered. It was a global flood.


The mountains were not covered.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 11, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Mind explaining how Psalms 104.9 actually says any such thing at all?


Sure. Psalms 104 is the creation event. Psalms 104;9 says "You set a boundary [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth". So the waters never covered the earth after dry land first appeared, which means Noah's flood was not global.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Are you really this dense? That's a rhetorical question. 

There was no "passing down" tales of a great flood. There were at least 6 dynasties of Egyptian civilization. None of them were interrupted by a global flood per biblical tales.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That's true, in part. Science does not support biblical tales and fables of global floods and Ark tales.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


How is it even possible to believe something that you can't even provide a real link to someone credible who believes what you do?


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

Meriweather said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > God's going to destroy all the land and dirt and all living, breathing things on it. That means the entire planet. It couldn't be any clearer.
> ...


So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” Which means the entire planet was flooded.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > It couldn't be any clearer.
> ...


You don't believe what the bible says. We get that. Now


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Because to put an end to ALL PEOPLE you'd need a worldwide flood.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


apparently, you're one of those atheists who does not read.......you've already been linked to the Egyptian flood myth that was passed down.....and why would you need to "interrupt" a civilization that had not yet started?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


but you are foolish to continue to make that same false claim.....I do believe in the Bible, I just reject your idiocy......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


not if all the people alive are in the same area.......(this isn't that complicated, I am puzzled why you cannot comprehend it......is it because atheists are not very bright, or just that they don't pay attention)........


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


The various Egyptian Dynasties spanned the timeframe of the biblical flood tale.

That is just more evidence that refutes biblical tales and fables.

Sorry, but your YEC'ist fantasies are again refuted.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


you see, this is why you have no arguments......you are not smart enough to realize there IS no timeframe for the biblical flood.......if you weren't handicapped by your ignorance we could advance the discussion......


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


There were people all over the earth at that time.  Geez, how do you even have a regional flood to the tops of the mountains without it spilling over to other parts of the earth, it's a physical impossibility. And you say I'M not very bright. Sheesh!


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Was eve made from one of adam's ribs?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


of course I say you aren't very bright......you still think you know when "earth at that time" was.......you insist on a literal translation of the Bible to support your argument.....fine, then there were 27 generations between Adam and Noah.......how many people were alive at the time of Noah and how far had they dispersed from the Garden of Eden......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I would consider it an idiocy of yours to argue that God had to have created Eve from Adam's rib......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> it's a physical impossibility.


interesting.....a creating being destroys all of humanity by his actions and you're worried about physical possibilities.......how about metaphysical possibilities.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


That's convenient. No timeframe for the biblical flood allows you to make-up the tales and fables to revise history as you go. 

Sorry, but your re-writing of the bibles to escape your inability to re-write contingent history is a laughable joke.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > it's a physical impossibility.
> ...


.......how about magical and supernatural possibilities......,


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


it remains for you to show I am rewriting "history"......there is actually nothing in the text itself which identifies any timetable......that comes not from the Bible but from a man named Ussher.......is it your belief the Bible is history?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I believe both would fall under the concept of "metaphysical".......as would your beliefs regarding 150k year old AGW......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> There were people all over the earth at that time.  Geez, how do you even have a regional flood to the tops of the mountains without it spilling over to other parts of the earth, it's a physical impossibility. And you say I'M not very bright. Sheesh!


When you account for the curvature of the earth, it's easy to see how the mountains would have appeared to be covered from the perspective of someone on that boat.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > There were people all over the earth at that time.  Geez, how do you even have a regional flood to the tops of the mountains without it spilling over to other parts of the earth, it's a physical impossibility. And you say I'M not very bright. Sheesh!
> ...


Ok, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! The dumbest post of the week! C'mon everyone and check out the latest non-sensical non-sense!


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Like I said, you don't believe in the bible. Now shut up.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


But there were people all over the world. Humans started out in Africa and dispersed around the world over a long period of time. So whenever the flood happened, it had to be worldwide, otherwise god doesn't kill everyone except Noah's bunch.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Your argument regarding no timeline for "Noah's Adventures on The Ark" is safe in the sense you can make-up any timeline you wish.

However, others actually have put a date on Noah's pleasure cruise.

The Date of Noah s Flood - creation.com

Not surprisingly, that date directly conflicts with the archeological data of existing cultures / civilizations at the time which have no record of a global flood.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > There were people all over the earth at that time.  Geez, how do you even have a regional flood to the tops of the mountains without it spilling over to other parts of the earth, it's a physical impossibility. And you say I'M not very bright. Sheesh!
> ...


Actually, no. The earth is flat, at least according to the bibles.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


The bible doesn't say he earth is flat.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> Like I said, you don't believe in the bible. Now shut up.


For a guy who doesn't believe in the bible you sure are taking it's word on a lot of things.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > The waters certainly threatened the mountains for they were covered. It was a global flood.
> ...



No?

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that _were_ under the whole heaven, were covered.
Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> Meriweather said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Yes indeed. People from all over the world just simply dreamed up a story of the flood all on their own. You gotta be kidding me.

There is much archaeological evidence confirming the Flood of Noah. There is a tablet in Babylon on which one of the Babylonian kings mentions his enjoyment in reading the writings of those who lived before the Flood. Another Babylonian tablet gives an interesting confirmation. Noah was the tenth generation from Adam according to the Bible, and this Babylonian tablet names the ten kings of Babylon who lived before the Flood. Another tablet names all the kings of Babylon, and after the first ten there are the words: “The Deluge came up. . .”
Stories of the Nochian Flood have been found in almost every civilization in the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark. He found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the flood. About 70,000 of them mention the wreckage of the Ark.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> No?
> 
> Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that _were_ under the whole heaven, were covered.
> Gen 7:20* Fifteen cubits* upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


15 cubits = 22.5 feet. Now that's one hell of a flood, but it's not going to cover a mountain.

The far-off mountains appeared to be covered by the observer due to the curvature of the earth, but they weren't actually covered.

It's the difference between a witness's perspective and objective reality as supported by the evidence. I suggest you put your bible down and look for a better church.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > No?
> ...



I suggest you pick up your Bible and read it instead of denying it in order to promote your ego. It was a totally different world than the world of today. You cannot superimpose this present world onto the world of the flood era. Yes, 22.5 feet above the hills should cover even one man standing on top of the hill upon another's shoulders.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Meriweather said:
> ...


Do you have any real scientific archeological evidence?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Why not?  Makes more sense than the evolutionists claims that she was made out of some cesspool soup or from some fish that climbed up out of the ocean.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


C'mon brah, seriously. You think your god plopped down adam fully formed then took a rib and made eve?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Well duhhh. I would claim those Babylonian tablets to be scientific archeological evidence. What do you want, a Fox News report with eyewitness accounts?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Do you seriously believe Adam was once a bird or a fish?  I'm no more insane than you.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Adam never existed. Now you know.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Geological proof that a worldwide flood happened.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Then according to you, neither did King David, Abraham, Jacob, the Christ, James, Jude, Queen Elizabeth, etc., etc.  You just wiped out all of history.


----------



## irosie91 (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I have known lots of  ADAM's------not during my childhood---I do not remember a single "adam"----in grammar school---
but it seems to have become a more popular name since that time-------of course there was  JOHN ADAMS ----papa and baby------but that was long ago


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



The Babylonia tablets are archeological proof.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I used the wrong term, I meant geological proof. A story isn't proof. Even written in stone.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


How did I manage that?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I've already provided the archeological proof you asked for and I have repeatedly researched and shot down Hollie's false claims. You atheists really do need to provide some data on your own that is somewhat accurate and refrain from making intentionally false claims as to dates, etc.  I am not here to constantly correct your false claims nor to research for you.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



We have the oldest known recorded genealogical record right there in the Bible. Read it.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie, check this out:

Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > Meriweather said:
> ...


Umm, sorry. You're being silly. "Collecting literature" means stamp collecting.

If you want literature, have at it:  Flood Stories from Around the World

Many cultures have flood stories but those are not connected to the tales and fables of the bibles.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie, check this out:
> 
> Flood Stories from Around the World



Yes. Everyone has a flood story. Nothing in the link connects those stories to biblical takes and fables.

So, how is it that civilizations and cultures existing at the time of Noah's alleged pleasure cruise have no record of any flood?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Actually, that's not true. We have genealogical records going back much further than 6,000 years.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And we are just simply prohibited to even guess from where they got such stories. LOL!!


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie, check this out:
> ...


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Possibly but I haven't seen one. Why don't you offer a link?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Not at all, LOL!!

The stories derive from the result of glacier and snow melt at the end of the last Ice Age 15,000 to 12,000 years ago. 

There's no need to introduce angry gawds and Arks when science and the geologic record provide testable answers.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Ice Age where. We have experienced ice ages in some parts of the world after the flood. Your geologic records are skewed. Your fossil records are skewed. I've already told you the earth in my own opinion is older than your 4.5 billion years. The dinosaur fossils are superimposed upon the fossils of this earth age. It's the same earth, the fossils from the first earth age remain with us though. They were not removed.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Of course. First earth age fossils.  Common sense.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You gave shot down nothing. 

In fact, you have sidestepped and dodged any attempt to address the historical and archeological records that identify many cultures and civilizations that existed at the time of the alleged biblical flood, Egyptian civilization for one example.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



That's not a genealogical record. I'm speaking of the record of a family.  I didn't say geological.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Inventing these rather strange and obtuse conspiracy theories are not helping your failed argument.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I'm afraid such a transparent sidestep only serves to further weaken your claims.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You claimed the Mayans were another. They weren't. Neither are the Egyptians. Prove the Egyptians. Back up your claim. I tire of researching for you only to discover you have falsified your dates.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



And just making statements don't further yours. Where's that genealogical record you claimed? Is that yet another false claim of yours?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That certainly is a genealogical record. Do you know what the term means?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Still waiting for your genealogical record.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I've provided links to the data.

Where is the verifiable data to some conspiracy theory you have regarding  something you have invented called a "first earth age?


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



There is a difference between a historical figure existing and a historical figure doing all kinds of magical stuff. There may have been a firebrand preacher named Jesus that got crucified for being a thorn in the side of the authorities, but that doesn't meant he was really the Son of God and had all kinds of powers. President Lincoln is a real historical figure, but that doesn't mean that he was a vampire hunter on the side even though I saw this movie where he was just that.

King David was real, but his deeds and life were expanded on by the people telling stories. He didn't live his life like he was in some cheesy 80s action film.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Yes I certainly do. I have about 2500 individuals in my own family tree that I have documented as ancestors. That Dear, is a genealogical record.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


It's in the link I gave you. 

Where is your data for the genealogical information for Adam & Eve?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Common sense. No dinosaurs now. Dinosaurs then.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That, dear is quite a sidestep. 

The link gave you can be denied but not ignored or refuted.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


It's all a conspiracy, right?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Try the Book of Genesis. Give the complete listing of sons all the way to Noah and then gives a listing of Noah's sons and their sons.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I neither denied or refuted the link. I simply said it was not a genealogical record and it isn't. It is no one's family tree.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No. Common sense.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That's not a genealogical record. That's a collection of tales and fables.

I suppose your stumbling block is literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

Other than science being a global conspiracy, how do you account for biologic history extending well past 6,000 years?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Magic and supernaturalism are not common sense themes.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Pointless. The chemistry of DNA has common attributes that connect humans and our distant ancestors. 

CB621 Mitochondrial Eve

The "mitochondrial Eve," to which this claim refers, is the most recent common female ancestor, not the original female ancestor. There would have been other humans living earlier and at the same time. The mtDNA lineages of other women contemporary with her eventually died out. Mitochondrial Eve was merely the youngest common ancestor of all today's mtDNA. She may not even have been human.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You really are too uneducated for words. It certainly is by all definitions a record of a family tree. 

I account for history extending well beyond 6,000 years because I believe the earth to be at least 10 billion years old. Why shouldn't there be evidence of its existence well beyond a mere 6,000 years?  That's stupid.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What are you rambling on about now?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Neither are most all of your nonsensical posts.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I gave you the link you asked for.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



You're just incensed that science refutes your need to believe in Ark tales and mythical floods.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



What is all this conspiracy theory nonsense you speak of?  Conspiracy about what?

You seem to get all heated up about my mentioning of earth ages. OK. If you don't like my terminology, fine. That terminology is used quite a bit. It is used to describe large time periods and small time periods, even time periods within time periods. We have had the stone age, the bronze age, the iron age, etc. One might claim this to be the cell phone age, the information age, the computer age. Who cares. Perhaps you might prefer the dinosaur age, the lost world age, the pre-historic age, or another term for my first earth age?  Who really cares what you call it. It doesn't matter in the least. Change the word "age" to era if you prefer. In any case the dinosaur or pre-historic era is long gone but the fossils of this bygone era remain with us.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



No you didn't. What was her daughter's name?  And her daughter's daughter?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Actually I'm incensed because science can't cure my cold.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


A story isn't proof, give me tangible geological proof. If there was a global flood, there should be a sediment layer recording it.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

So, does anyone know after all this how kangaroos got to the boat and back to Australia?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I've never read of any "first earth age". Did you get that from a creation ministry?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



First, I don't have to give you anything. Second, I have stated that seashells have been found atop almost every mountain range in the world. You claimed this was because of the shifts in the earth's plates. I guess this works regardless of how far the mountains are from the ocean?  I even asked you for the name of an ocean to which you never responded.  Provide your own research.

When I provide information to you folks, you attack the source of the information as being something from a right-wing Christian creationist website. Even with that being so, the honorable thing would be to attack and disprove the information provided, not the source of the information as you always do. That approach proves nothing.  I am onto your games and will not fall for it any longer. You want to ask questions and provide little proof yourselves but attack whatever source I provide. I have never attacked your sources.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...




My point exactly. Did I attack your sources?  No, I didn't. Why don't you people have any scruples?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> So, does anyone know after all this how kangaroos got to the boat and back to Australia?



Oh goody!!  Taz must have the ship's manifest. Please share it with all of us.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I don't doubt that one bit. You probably never heard of the bronze age either. You'll have to tell me. You're the one who mentioned something about a 6,000 year old earth. I'm the one who claimed its over 10 billion years old. I didn't realize you were in the new earther crowd.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


So you have no geological proof of a global flood. Got it. 
Does anyone?


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So, does anyone know after all this how kangaroos got to the boat and back to Australia?
> ...


Well, if kangaroos are alive today, they had to be on Noah's boat. pretty simple really. If you don't know the answer, just say so.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


The earth is over 10 billion years old? Where did you get that from?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Don't know how to do a search?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You have more questions than a five year old. It's called opinion. My opinion.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



It was not my question. It was your question. If I wanted an answer to it, I would research it.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Actually, I appreciate this guy's take on the subject:

Lewin says this about the theory of human evolution:

In the physical realm, any theory of human evolution must explain how it was that an apelike ancestor, equipped with powerful jaws and long, daggerlike canine teeth and able to run at speed on four limbs, became transformed into a slow, bipedal animal whose natural means of defense were at best puny. Add to this the power of intellect, speech, and morality, upon which we “stand raised as upon the mountain top” as Huxley put it, and one has the complete challenge to the evolutionary theory.ii

I guess he was totally unaware of the Chaos Theory of Evolution. The Chaos theory explains that evolution leads only to death, decay, rot, weak species, inferior life forms, etc.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> Like I said, you don't believe in the bible. Now shut up.


???...I'm required to shut up simply because you're ignorant?....that doesn't make any sense.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


what if the flood happened and the survivors ended up in Africa and dispersed around the world over a long period of time?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I am not concerned that you and others have put a timeline on the flood.....since none of you can prove that your timeline is binding on the rest of us.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



actually, I think that would only cover "mountains" of fifteen cubits and below......


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Here is what your science has often called its proof of evolution: Evolution Fraud and Myths


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



Well, suit yourself. The scriptures plainly state that the flood covered the mountains. I will agree the scriptures make no mention as to the heights of those mountains.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Actually that idea has been updated. There were a couple of camps. One camp argued that life began in Africa and dispersed out from there. Another camp held that life began in China and dispersed out to cover the earth from there. Guess from where they now pretty much agree that post-flood civilization started and dispersed from.  Prepare to be amazed.  Mount Arafat!!  That's right. Right from where Noah's Ark is supposed to be.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm not the one putting a timeline on the biblical flood tale. Your fundie creation ministries have done that. 

You hope to avoid timelines for Noah's pleasure cruise because to do so exposes you to historical and archeological data that refutes your claims. 

Your position is cowardly and obtuse but in a very real sense, you don't have a choice.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Umm. My. Ararat is not in China. Your Ark'ists have repeatedly failed to find any Ark.

Secondly, there is no such thing as "post flood" civilization. Prepare to be amazed: humans and our ancient ancestors are much older than 6,000 years.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Here is what your science has often called its proof of evolution: Evolution Fraud and Myths


Well, yeah. A fundamentalist Christian ministry would naturally find that evolutionary science is wrong, duh!

Unfortunately, your link exposes the fraud that is fundamentalist Christianity and its science loathing agenda. It's just unfortunate for you and those like you that the charlatans who run these ministries reinforce a host of negative stereotypes aimed at the hyper-religious.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Hey Turkey, mine is in Turkey. You're lost and rambling on again. LOL!


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what your science has often called its proof of evolution: Evolution Fraud and Myths
> ...



No, they're not the ones who caught you guys in fraud. They just posted it on their website. I noticed as usual, you don't refute their posted references.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Sorry, but you've been duped by fraudsters and charlatans who have made grandiose claims of finding Noah's Ark. 

Here's one of the more notorious frauds:

Sun Pictures and the Noah s Ark Hoax


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I noticed as usual that you rattle on with non-specific claims which you don't / can't support.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Show us what you got, if anything.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


if you don't know don't answer.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Too bad that's not what happened. Even you know that.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said, you don't believe in the bible. Now shut up.
> ...


Ignorant is saying that you believe in the bible when you know you don't believe it.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Actually my study on the dispersal of civilization made no mention at all about Noah's Ark.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



But YOU asked me. You want me to just ignore you?  OK.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You've been beaten so bad on here that you're beginning to act punch drunk.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You still haven't disputed anything at all that old right-wing Christian Conservative Creationist website said though, have you? Were all you self-proclaimed genius atheists and evolutionists to take your case before the Supreme Court, they would toss your case and have you all lodged in cages at the funny farm.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Beaten how? 

What's interesting is that, in typical creationist fashion, nothing in your argument is supportive of magical, supernatural gawds. The entirety of the creationist argument is to attack and vilify science. The problem with such an approach is that you're forced to invent and maintain conspiracy theories about science.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Your creationist websites refute themselves. For all your appeals to fear and ignorance revolving around Arks and global floods, you haven't presented a single bit of verifiable evidence for either.

No Arks, no global floods, nothing.


----------



## Taz (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


So tell us how kangaroos got to the boat and back to oz.


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 12, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



See, when Noah and sons let the animals out, the roos and koalas and dingoes and the abos and all the other down under animals walked to Australia and then God did some miracle stuff and then Oz just floated away from the Middle East, the same way possums and armadillos walked to Texas and then God miracle the Americas to where they are today. It's in the Bible, somewhere in the back.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Actually, you should review Kitzmiller vs. Dover for an instructive lesson in creationist hacks suffering a humiliating defeat. 

Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision of the Court

The loss for fundie Christians and the ID'iot industry was absolutely devastating. The ID'iots were literally run out of town with a scathing decision written by judge Jones, unfalteringly critical of the hoped-for fraud perpetrated by the ID'iot christian fundies.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

I've been wondering.  Would one of you atheists explain to me just how the d


Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Are you talking about the Kennedy/Oswald/Mob/Cuban/Russian deal in Dallas?


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Actually, I've rather enjoyed your humiliating defeat right here.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



But . . . I protest. When dealing with you, one is dealing with fear and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I can see you're angry and frustrated but that's a condition of your own making.

Honestly, how “reasonable” is it to assert your world of magic and supernaturalism? It's not about our personal beliefs or desires -- it's about a standard of demonstration and supporting corroboration that establishes something true as opposed to it being mere assertion.

The litany of exceptions regarding irrational religious assertions is effectively endless. These are excuses, couched in terms of the supernatural to allow you to embrace your desires for existence to be more than what is right here and now. 

I think you pre-define the supernatural as excused from any verifiable standard and then proceed calmly and "reasonably" inside that paradigm. At your level, it's "religious belief". At another level, it's utter delusion.

Tell me, what is the difference between your asserted magical / supernatural realms and a certifiably insane person's claim that he is Napoleon? Both are equally demonstrable and reasonable claims, (according to your standards), and why should I believe your claims of magical gawds are real, but the individual with cognitive impairment (claiming to be Napolean) is uttering a false claim?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> I've been wondering.  Would one of you atheists explain to me just how the d
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> ...


Nope. I'm talking about your conspiracy theories wherein the global science community has conspired to employ the methods of science to explain existence as opposed to belief in magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


What defeat? 

I provided evidence to show the falsehood of your biblical global flood. I gave you timelines of existing cultures / civilizations that existed both before and after your Ark tales. These cultures / civilizations left no archeological or historic data of the biblical flood.

I provided evidence that shows ID'iot creationism is nothing more than fundamentalist Christianity with a new name. I provided that shows the humiliating defeat of fundie Christians hoping to install their dogma into the public schools.

I've refuted your claims to magic and supernaturalism as having completely natural origins.

My experience is that you hyper-religious types who make bellicose claims to "humiliating defeats" do so in failed attempts to excuse their inability to present a defendable argument.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


The bible doesn't say 15 cubits *above the hills*. It says the watter rose 15 cubits. That's not high enough to cover the mountan, not even close.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



The difference Hollie is that I acknowledge both my God and your god. You acknowledge neither, which is perfectly fine with your god. Your god is satisfied to remain obscure and hidden from you as long as you serve his agenda. While in your delusion, a lie that you readily bought into, you serve his purpose. It is your god's genius that he stroked your ego into believing that you are simply too intelligent to believe in either himself or in my God. Though you deny your god, he acknowledges his servant. Since you deny my God, He will deny you too.

Revel in your self-proclaimed intelligence Hollie. That's all you have.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...



But it does say it covered the mountains. Says it plain enough for a sixth grader to understand.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Anyone honest is free to go back and read the posts and make their own determination. I have nothing to sell. I have no super ego to feed.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > I've been wondering.  Would one of you atheists explain to me just how the d
> ...



You onto the wine a bit too much again?  You into that "Where is James Hoffa" thing?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> But it does say it covered the mountains. Says it plain enough for a sixth grader to understand.


It does say that, and I think that's exactly how it would have appeared to an observer on a boat in the middle of the flood.

That doesn't mean Noah took satellite readings and confirmed an objective measurement. It just means Noah couldn't see the hills anymore, and that's perfectly explainable through natural causes like the curvature of the earth, something Noah had no concept of.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 12, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > But it does say it covered the mountains. Says it plain enough for a sixth grader to understand.
> ...



Pezz, Noah authored zero Books of the Bible. The Bible's author was God. Could God not see the hills anymore?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 12, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Pezz, Noah authored zero Books of the Bible. The Bible's author was God. Could God not see the hills anymore?


God did not write any part of the bible. Ink was set to parchment with a human hand.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


You acknowledge partisan gawds that happen to be the dominant gawds in a certain geographic region. There's nothing too complicated about that.  You simply followed the herd and accepted the gawds you were given. 

In typical fashion, you use your gawds both as a weapon and a shield. You subtle threats are unimportant and more importantly, do your gawds know that you have taken it upon yourself to speak authoritatively on their behalf?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


well of course you are......I know you don't read my posts, but don't you even read YOURS?......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


????.......no, I KNOW you're judgmental, can't debate very well and lack an education......I do NOT know that isn't what happened.......


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > But it does say it covered the mountains. Says it plain enough for a sixth grader to understand.
> ...


God said: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." So not a regional flood, but a global flood.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So, if they landed in Africa, how did all the animals get to Australia and North and South America?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


????.....ignorant is claiming you know what someone else believes.......I am certainly prepared to admit you've demonstrated ignorance repeatedly in this thread......however, I am not going to admit not believing something I believe......I consider your arguments, and your knowledge of the Bible to be quite shallow.....you are nearly as bad as Holly......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


???....are you not aware of how the creatures of the earth have dispersed around the globe?....oh wait, let me guess.....you're going to pretend I can't believe in God if I believe in that, right?......sorry, kid.....that argument sucked the last eleven times you tried it.....it still sucks.....why don't you go out and find a real argument......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


start at the beginning......there was this mud puddle and it was struck by lightening.....and some of the charred mud turned into life and started reproducing......and eventually this animal climbed out and walked to Australia, turning into kangaroos and dingos and aboriginies along the way......you gotta believe it, science has proved it......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> God said: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." So not a regional flood, but a global flood.


Notice "earth" isn't capitalised.  That means it's not a name, not Earth, just some earth somewhere.

And "all life under the heavens"...I suppose you think Earth was used as some kind of Death Star to exterminate all life everwhere in the galaxi? You should write a movie script on it.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > God said: "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish." So not a regional flood, but a global flood.
> ...


"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens". Not floodwaters in the whole galaxy, just this whole planet.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So tell us how kangaroos got to the boat and back to oz.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


So if they landed in Africa, how did all the animals now on this continent cross the Atlantic ocean? Humans walked over the ice bridge from Asia during the last ice age. Animals were already here. How?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

QUOTE="PostmodernProph, post: 10158553, member: 47091"]





Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


well of course you are......I know you don't read my posts, but don't you even read YOURS?......[/QUOTE]
You're still not paying


PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You're still not paying attention. It's your fundamentalist Christian ministries which are putting a date on Noah's pleasure cruise. 

Timeline for the Flood Answers in Genesis


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Repeating the nonsense you read at fundie christian ministries is why your  posts come across as science illiterate.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Why not identify and post authoritative sources on how the earth was *poofed* into existence 6,000 years ago, how a 600 year old Noah cruised the globe on a boat full of animals, and how that nonsense explains the diversity of life on the planet.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I can see that you're angry and, well, pissy, but you're failure to present an argument that relies solely upon the intervention of magic and supernaturalism is no one's fault but yours.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz, Noah authored zero Books of the Bible. The Bible's author was God. Could God not see the hills anymore?
> ...



Have it your way.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I acknowledge your right to believe or not to believe. I reserve that same right. I think it beautiful that each one of us are responsible for him/herself.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens". Not floodwaters in the whole galaxy, just this whole planet.


It says "under the heaven*s*", which means not just Earth's heaven but all heavens, the entire galaxy.

Where did _that_ water go?


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens". Not floodwaters in the whole galaxy, just this whole planet.
> ...


No, it says "bring floodwaters on the earth", not in the galaxy. Please learn how to read.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...


you can simply read the answer I gave the last time you asked......its not my fault you didn't read it then.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


if you want more attention from me instead of ridicule, you'll have to come up with an argument that doesn't hinge upon pretending I'm a young earther......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> No...


You just quoted it yourself, it said "destroy all life under the heavens". That's _your _quote. Heaven means sky and Earth only has one sky so referring to multiple skys is to refer to more than one planet. In this case, ALL planets. All life under all of the heavens.



Taz said:


> ....it says "bring floodwaters on the earth", not in the galaxy. Please learn how to read.


Lower case earth means land generically. It has to be a capitol letter in order to mean the planet. So you're saying your god brought the floodwatters on the earth to the whole galaxy. That's a nice theory you have there. Completely divorced from science and basic English reading comp but I suppose everyone needs a hobbie.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

So, does anyone know how kangaroos got from oz to the boat and back?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Ok. 

So..... tell us about a 600 hundred year old Noah and the Ark tale....... all of which took place just a few thousand years ago.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



I'd rather hear about that tadpole that climbed out of that cesspool of slime and turned into Taylor Swift.


----------



## Taz (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Thousands of credible scientists would tell you about evolution (it's the leading theory, not fact), if you bothered to search it. How about a 600 year old Noah? Got ANY credible scientists who believe that?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Actually, you would rather not address the absurdity of a 600 year old Noah and the lack of evidence for any of the biblical tales and fables,


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Of course. There are rather renown scientists on both sides of the issue were you to bother enough to check it out for yourself. That's what most of us do when we want to find out something.  You should try it.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Not anymore. I figure over 1500 posts with nothing settled as of yet, is about 1400 too many wasted already.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Lots of things are settled. It's settled that your partisan gawds are but one conception of gawds, none of which are any better supported than the other. 

Ultimately, it will be the process of science that will explore and discover. Now, it's possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely _natural_ cause but that still wouldn't prove a _supernatural_ causation. Not all the tools of science are in hand and scientific discoveries are on-going. 

How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny, demand they be accountable at some level?

In fact, the _only_ model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon or 600 year old men build Arks as your gawds prepare to wipe out most of humanity.  

Yet again, we're left to question If everyone simply accepts as the answer to existence that one or more conceptions of gawds are the primal cause we would condemn humanity to never probing the answers to the deeper questions. And in fact during the dark ages this thought held sway -- do not seek the answers to the mysteries of life, because you cannot answer them because you cannot know the mind or character of the gawds.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Please identify the "renown' scientists who advance the notion of a 600 year old Noah.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



You continue to do exactly as you have been doing. You come on a public forum and declare that you are a superior intellect and that everyone else is ignorant. You keep repeating that claim until you believe it.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



I will as soon a you identify the scientist who claimed Taylor Swift sprang forth from a cesspool soup of slime 100 million years ago.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



OK Taz. You seem to have a thing for Australia and for kangaroos. I'll tell you something which you will deny of course.

Before the flood, there was no Australia. There was no United States. There was no Europe.  There was just one big piece of land. The climate over all this land was the same. It was a tropical greenhouse kind of climate all over the earth at that time. The animals (including your kangaroos) were free to roam wherever they so desired over this tropical earth.

Like I say, you will deny this but at least maybe you will get of the subject of kangaroos once and for all. I hope.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


 I've never made any such declaration as you claim. 

If you're not emotionally prepared to have others challenge your opinions, you may wish to reconsider your participation in these threads.

You insist that your conceptions of partisan gawds are true and extant yet you recoil when your opinions surrounding those gawds are challenged with demands that opinions meet a standard of demonstration. The entire worldview of the religionist is asserting something outside the realm of what science considers SCIENCE. While the evidence, (lack thereof), you've posted in support of your gawds is viciously circular, (knowing that you have a bias toward a particular sectarian belief), "substandard" leaps out at me and it's a simple matter to know why it's substandard: your fundamentalist belief begins by firmly placing itself out of the realm of science and into the supernatural realm.

It's very easy for creationists or IDists or religionists to pursue this matter in the proper way.

First, establish a solid theory for the idea of something outside of the "materialist" realm (i.e., the "supernatural"). Then, establish a theory that relies on the established theory and shows a _correlation_. Then the IDists and creationists and supernaturalists will have something worth reviewing.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


That's quite a sidestep. 

Let that be a lesson to you: don't make outrageous, nonsensical claims that you later have to retreat from.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


so you opted out on the intelligent argument gamble?.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 13, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


and any credible scientist would admit that there is no evidence that meets the tests of the scientific method capable of proving that humans evolved from a single celled organism......


----------



## SmedlyButler (Nov 13, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



How many times do you have to be reminded that evolution is not a theory of the origin of life but concerns itself with the development of life? From Rationalwiki;

_"When compiled over successive generations, cumulative genotypic changes manifest significant enough phenotypic differences between discrete populations of organisms that they can no longer interbreed, leading to speciation. This and similar explanations of biodiversity, such as genetic drift, are evolution's sole concerns, not the origin of life itself."_

Evolutionists do not have a recipe for


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


>


My highschool science teacher had a can like that inconspicuously placed on a shelf behind his desk and gave extra credit points to the first student of the simester to notice it if they could say something inteligent on evolution.

I later realised how smart that tactic was because it got students thinking more about evolution when they weren't in his class. He had a few items like that in his lab and we started looking and commenting on all sorts of things in the hopes of getting extra credit. It made us pay more attention to....well, everything.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
Sounds like one of those great teachers who are among any nation's most valuable resources.


----------



## asterism (Nov 13, 2014)

Pezz said:


> SmedlyButler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



While I think evolution is a mostly correct theory, I dislike the tactic used by your teacher.  Providing a reward for a trigger does not foster the expansion of knowledge, it serves as a selection criterion for indoctrination.  We don't need indoctrinated students who are successful because they respond to triggers.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

asterism said:


> While I think evolution is a mostly correct theory, I dislike the tactic used by your teacher.  Providing a reward for a trigger does not foster the expansion of knowledge, it serves as a selection criterion for indoctrination.  We don't need indoctrinated students who are successful because they respond to triggers.


Public school itself is about indoctrination. That's why it exists. For example, America is the only 'free' country who makes children recite a pledge every day. Not even Russia does that.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 13, 2014)

SmedlyButler said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > SmedlyButler said:
> ...


He also used his bad singing as punishment.  If he asked a question, someone had better answer it or we would all get an ear full of poorly sung 50s dance


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 14, 2014)

I really don't understand the need for Noah's Flood to be an actual event.

If I was looking at it in terms of an allegory, it suggests that punishment is reserved for the wicked and sinful while the innocent and just would be safeguarded and spared.

As a literal story, it says a lot less than its allegorical.  It also implies that mankind is judged as a group, with only a chosen few spared.

Considering that Noah was only a couple of generations removed from Adam, I find it amazing there was not much sorrow in the passing away of his family(the people around were his cousins, not just 'friends' but actual blood relatives) 

Also, it does not seem like it was necessary to drown the entire world when a flood that engulfed the region would be more than sufficient to kill mankind.  Do you really think that a handful of Noah's relatives made a bee line to America? Just to argue they made it past the Himalaya's is asking  a lot for this time period--how would they even know how to survive, given that they were raised in a river valley?


----------



## amrchaos (Nov 14, 2014)

Oh, and by the way

If you wonder why most civilizations had a flood myth, look at where they started or the people they descend from.

Most civilizations either started near a large body of water or river, and heavy flooding may have occurred from time to time.  Even the Hebrew had a double dose of it--first being derived from people of the Mesopotamia river valley, and then their experiences with the Nile river valley. 

Try locating a people that never lived near a body of water that floods r is derived from such a people and flood myths would not be as common meme as it would for, say, people of the Euphrates or Indus or any other historical river valleys.


----------



## SmedlyButler (Nov 14, 2014)

asterism said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > SmedlyButler said:
> ...



_"He had a few items like that in his lab and we started looking and commenting on all sorts of things in the hopes of getting extra credit. It made us pay more attention to....well, everything."_

I had a contrary view, it sounded to me like the teacher stimulated critical thinking and a curiosity in "well, everything".


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 14, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> Oh, and by the way
> 
> If you wonder why most civilizations had a flood myth, look at where they started or the people they descend from.
> 
> ...


Why would a people single out one flood in particular when floods per-se are so common?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 14, 2014)

amrchaos said:


> I really don't understand the need for Noah's Flood to be an actual event.
> 
> If I was looking at it in terms of an allegory, it suggests that punishment is reserved for the wicked and sinful while the innocent and just would be safeguarded and spared.
> 
> ...


If you take the geneology of Adam to Noah at face value, you see that Adam lived long enough to personaly meet Noah.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I opted out of your pointless 6,000 year old earth nonsense.


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2014)

Pezz said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and by the way
> ...


In spite of the true absurdities surrounding the Noah fable, it is a central theme and core element of christianity. To acknowledge the event as metaphor and fable calls into question all of the biblical tales. 

It's an all or nothin' proposition. If some parts of the bibles are literally true and some are not, who decides fact from fable?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> In spite of the true absurdities surrounding the Noah fable, it is a central theme and core element of christianity. To acknowledge the event as metaphor and fable calls into question all of the biblical tales.


Then let's call them all into question, but let's also give each its own thread. My personal favorite is exploring Joshua's missing day.



Hollie said:


> It's an all or nothin' proposition. If some parts of the bibles are literally true and some are not, who decides fact from fable?


 Each person decides what they do and do not accept as literaly true or aligorical or a fable or outright false, for themselves.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Got any proof? No? Then shut up, you moron.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


So you have nothing to back up your point. Got it. Now please


----------



## hobelim (Nov 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> In spite of the true absurdities surrounding the Noah fable, it is a central theme and core element of christianity. To acknowledge the event as metaphor and fable calls into question all of the biblical tales.
> 
> It's an all or nothin' proposition. If some parts of the bibles are literally true and some are not, who decides fact from fable?




whether any part of any fable or fairy tale is true or false is irrelevant. Whats important is the teaching conveyed and even if the entire story is pure fiction the story can still convey the truth.

Noah built an ark, but so did Moses. Noahs ark held every type of creature, clean or unclean, the ark of the covenant held descriptions of every type of creature, clean or unclean. Maybe there is much more there than what meets the eye?

When one reads the story of the boy who cried wolf, does it matter if he ever existed? Does it matter where the story occurred or what language was spoken? Does it matter if there is no scientific or archeological evidence to verify the story? If someone could prove that the details written about  in the story were completely false would it make the moral of the story false?





.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Hollie said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


another atheist sinks to the level of irrelevancy......


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Ok. I'll not respond to your posts anymore. I gave you a plausible reply  which as I predicted, you denied. A plausible reply was more than you ever offered. All you do is ask questions like a five tear old.  I won't respond to you anymore.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

hobelim said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > In spite of the true absurdities surrounding the Noah fable, it is a central theme and core element of christianity. To acknowledge the event as metaphor and fable calls into question all of the biblical tales.
> ...


I want to know how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and back again. Otherwise, the bible is a load of crap.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I ask for PROOF, and you call me a 5 year old. So you have no proof, I get it. Now shut the fuck up. This thread is for people who have a clue about what they are talking about.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


only if you can identify the verse of the Bible that says Noah got kangaroos from Australia at all.....


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




Then you certainly have no business on the thread. Idiot!! Child!!


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"
I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.  But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark *two of all living creatures, male and female,* to keep them alive with you."


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I thought this thread was for five year olds who thrash around and attack the people who answered his silly questions.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


Either put up or shut up. Pretty simple really.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


apparently they didn't know how to spell kangaroo in those days......


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...


I asked a question and he couldn't answer it. Apparently, neither can you.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I just identified the bible passage for you. Now answer MY question: How did Noah get roos from Oz and back?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


on the other hand, your question has been answered at least a dozen times..........


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


that Bible passage does not mention kangaroos......try again.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


"*two of all living creatures, male and female". *Ok, I get that you have nothing from your fantasy world that explains roos..., now please shut the fuck up.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Not answered even once. Now shut up, old man.


----------



## hobelim (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> I want to know how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and back again. Otherwise, the bible is a load of crap.



That's like saying that you want to know how pigs built houses without hands or tools or else the story of the three little pigs is a load of crap.

You need to try another approach to understanding scripture or you will make yourself look as foolish as people who insist that the story is the literal truth and pigs used to build houses during some magical time in the past.

You both miss the point of the stories, the hidden teaching, just as completely.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Of course it does, but since it doesn't fit your fantasy world, you pretend that IT DOESN'T. NOW SHUT UP, OLD MAN.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I want to know how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and back again. Otherwise, the bible is a load of crap.
> ...


The 3 pigs is an admitted fairy tale. You comparing the bible to fairy tales?


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


Go change your Depends, you fucking old fart.


----------



## hobelim (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> The 3 pigs is an admitted fairy tale. You comparing the bible to fairy tales?



Yes, in the sense that through the stories, like hidden treasure,  teachings are conveyed that are not directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.

A talking serpent in the very first book of the bible should have been a dead giveaway to anyone with a second grade education.

Torah means instruction not history.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I have no reason to shut up......if you're silly enough to pretend again that we haven't answered you, I will point out again that we have.....


----------



## Steven_R (Nov 14, 2014)

So we have Earth with one big landmass that has everything on it, all happy and cool. Roos, polar bears, gorillas, armadillos, and then the flood. Noah packs up all the critters into his boat, there's water and the continents split. Noah's boat comes to a stop in Turkey. Then, somehow, critters in the Americas and Australia that don't exist in Africa or Eurasia get to Australia or the Americas...

...or...

...Noah packs up the critters, boat stops, everyone gets off, THEN God breaks up the landmass and people and critters just float away...

...or...

...flood, boat, Turkey, God miracles koalas to Oz, Tower of Babel, God miracles people to Oz...

Yeah, makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


and people wonder why I think atheists are idiots.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...





PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I know, right? At the time of Noah's ocean voyage a few thousand years ago, there was one large land mass where humans, animals and dinosaurs roamed.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The 3 pigs is an admitted fairy tale. You comparing the bible to fairy tales?
> ...


So for you the stories of the bible aren't true. Ok, fair enough. I've always assumed that people who believe in the bible believed the stories of the bible, I never would have guessed that most Christians don't believe a word the bible says. Kinda bizarre to follow a book you believe is fiction.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > the_human_being said:
> ...



Indeed. Such anger he displays. It figures though. It really shows the demonic influences over the lives of atheists when they are so unhappy and angry that they resort to typing out profanities.  Sad really.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...



No, just profanities.  Such unhappiness and hatred. So childish too. I always heard some of the demonic spirits were child-like and nonsensical. I guess that was correct. He came on here demanding we answer his questions like some kind of spoiled little child and he continues to do so.  He's like a kid the parent tells he can't have any candy before dinner. He just starts cursing and whining and throwing tantrums.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Ok Hu, are you saying that the flood happened when all the earth was a big supercontinent called Pangaea that existed from approximately 510 to 180 million years ago?


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Not so. Just fed up with you guys repeating the same thing over and over again, especially P(i)MP. I get his point, now shut up so other people can chime in. That's all. Everytime I try to ask "does anyone know how roos got there and back? ", he fucking butts in with the SAME FUCKING TIRED AND LAME ARGUMENT. I get it. Now shut up. Please.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

hobelim said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I want to know how Noah got kangaroos from Australia and back again. Otherwise, the bible is a load of crap.
> ...



Watch out or he'll start raving and cursing you too. He's totally mad you know.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

the_human_being said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You should lay off on the glue sniffing.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

Atheists are proof of the Chaos Theory of Evolution.


----------



## the_human_being (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


to

I know. He tells me to shut the _____ up. He tells me to not bother to comment.  I try to accommodate him by ignoring him and by doing as he asked of me, yet the stupid jerk keeps addressing posts to me.  Is he stupid or what?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I thought you were antagonistic.....


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> especially P(i)MP.


ah, seizing the high moral ground I see.....why do atheists always resort to insult when they begin to look foolish?.......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> . Everytime I try to ask "does anyone know how roos got there and back? ", he fucking butts in with the SAME FUCKING TIRED AND LAME ARGUMENT. I get it. Now shut up. Please.


lol.....what was it they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?.....


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > . Everytime I try to ask "does anyone know how roos got there and back? ", he fucking butts in with the SAME FUCKING TIRED AND LAME ARGUMENT. I get it. Now shut up. Please.
> ...


lol.....what is it they say about about the hyper-religious and expecting coherent responses? .......


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > especially P(i)MP.
> ...


I'm not the one who says he believes in the bible then doesn't believe in the stories like a global flood.


----------



## Taz (Nov 14, 2014)

so does anyone know how Roos got to the boat and back to oz?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> so does anyone know how Roos got to the boat and back to oz?


The Australian crawl, obviously.

Evolution of the Australian Crawl c1952 clip 1 on ASO - Australia s audio and visual heritage online


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 14, 2014)

Taz said:


> The 3 pigs is an admitted fairy tale.


...about tornadoes, and you would miss the lesson if you just dismissed it because no one could explain how pigs built houses.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


and for that you call me a pimp?....at least when I call you ignorant it is based upon obvious reality.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PostmodernProph said:
> ...


You pimp out whore-like stories that are based on fantasy.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Well, I guess no bible believers here can verify the flood story or defend it properly. I'm a little surprised actually. Didn't think THAT would happen!


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> Well, I guess no bible believers here can verify the flood story or defend it properly. I'm a little surprised actually. Didn't think THAT would happen!


what a fucking idiot.....


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess no bible believers here can verify the flood story or defend it properly. I'm a little surprised actually. Didn't think THAT would happen!
> ...


Says the old fart with no rational position while wearing Depends.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > The 3 pigs is an admitted fairy tale.
> ...


The point isn't about the lesson (I get that part), it's about whether ANYONE still believes that the bible stories are true.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


The 3 little pigs IS true, houses built from straw and sticks can't survive a tornado.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Pezz said:
> ...


LOL! So a wolf blew their houses down? Were the pigs wearing overalls like in the Disney cartoon?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> LOL! So a wolf blew their houses down? Were the pigs wearing overalls like in the Disney cartoon?


The wolf represents the tornado, and Disney didn't invent the story.

The story is true for the lesson it convays.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! So a wolf blew their houses down? Were the pigs wearing overalls like in the Disney cartoon?
> ...


Ok, you must get your retard from P(i)MP. A wolf didn't actually blow houses down, therefore the story isn't true. Pretty simple really. Now shut up.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> Ok, you must get your retard from P(i)MP. A wolf didn't actually blow houses down, therefore the story isn't true. Pretty simple really. Now shut up.


The story is true because it conveys truth. If you want to survive a tornado,  or really any severe storm, you need a solid house made of brick.

Likewise the story of Noah is true even if no flood ever occured,  because faith can carry you through when you're whole world is destroyed. 

There are many ways something can be true. Literally true is just one.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, you must get your retard from P(i)MP. A wolf didn't actually blow houses down, therefore the story isn't true. Pretty simple really. Now shut up.
> ...


So you don't believe that the bible stories are true in a physical sense. I get it.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> So you don't believe that the bible stories are true in a physical sense. I get it.


Some are, some aren't. The book of Jobe, for example, is generally excepted as pure allegory loosely based on a possible real person. It's true because it conveys truth even-though non of it actually happened. The genealogy of Adam to Noah is telescoped, which was a common practice when recording genealogy at the time. But today we look at it and think it includes every name from every person because that's how we do it today, and that's how we get Young Earth Creationism. The 4 horses of the apocalypses and the Beast in revelations are governments, not actual creatures.

I personally think the story of Noah is true, I just see no reason to believe it was global.

On a related note: Noah did not take in 2 of every animal. The texts says 2 of every _kind_ of animal. So not 2 mallards and 2 geese and 2 wigeons, but just 2 Anatidae. This reduces the capacity needs of the Ark considerably, which makes it's stated dimensions much more realistic.


----------



## Taz (Nov 15, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't believe that the bible stories are true in a physical sense. I get it.
> ...


"You are to* bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female*, to keep them alive with you. Two of *every kind of bird*, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. "
2 of all living creatures, and every kind of bird. So mallards, geese AND widgeons.

So basically, you're a pick-and-chooser. You don't believe the parts that don't seem to be believable. So either the bible is not the word of god, or god's a liar. Which is it?


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> "You are to* bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female*, to keep them alive with you. Two of *every kind of bird*, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. "
> 2 of all living creatures, and every kind of bird. So mallards, geese AND widgeons.


Mallards, geese and widgeons are all the same *kind* of bird, so only 2 from that family are required.



Taz said:


> So basically, you're a pick-and-chooser. You don't believe the parts that don't seem to be believable. So either the bible is not the word of god, or god's a liar. Which is it?


The word of god is inerrant, translations contain errors, therefore no translation is the word of god. Only the original text can be the word of god. Christians don't learn Hebrew which means Christians have never read the word of god. This of course debases Christianity as a religion, and rightly so.


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


yes, because all intelligent thought Depends on it........thanks for showing everyone the true purpose of your silly thread......


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 15, 2014)

Taz said:


> Pezz said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


if I'm a pimp., does it mean you're working for me now?......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 16, 2014)

PostmodernProph said:


> if I'm a pimp., does it mean you're working for me now?......


Is Taz  your bottom bitch?


----------



## Hollie (Nov 16, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > "You are to* bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female*, to keep them alive with you. Two of *every kind of bird*, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. "
> ...


There is no such thing as the "word of the gods". The bibles were written by men with no input, direction or narration by any of the christian gawds. 

The bibles are clearly and inarguably books written by men.


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 16, 2014)

Hollie said:


> There is no such thing as the "word of the gods". The bibles were written by men with no input, direction or narration by any of the christian gawds.
> 
> The bibles are clearly and inarguably books written by men.


Of course they were written by men. The whole god meme is our species reaching for the next evolutionary step.


----------



## Taz (Nov 16, 2014)

So, does anyone know how roos got from Australia to Noah's boat and back?


----------



## PostmodernProph (Nov 16, 2014)

Pezz said:


> PostmodernProph said:
> 
> 
> > if I'm a pimp., does it mean you're working for me now?......
> ...


certainly the least productive......


----------



## Ellipsis (Nov 16, 2014)

Taz said:


> So, does anyone know how roos got from Australia to Noah's boat and back?


Yeah, they never left because Noah's flood was a local event that never touched Australia.


----------



## Taz (Nov 16, 2014)

Pezz said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > So, does anyone know how roos got from Australia to Noah's boat and back?
> ...


Heard that already and you're wrong. Next.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


This is how we know the Noah's ark story is bs. Not only did the Chinese exist before during and after the supposed flood that wiped out all the people on earth, so did the Egyptian, Peruvian, mosopotamians and Sumerian people. 

Maybe there was just a flood in Noah's part of the world. Maybe it was just his people who were wicked. White people!

Now here's when whites will admit Noah and Jesus were most likely arabs


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

DriftingSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


So they brought two Chinese two Mexicans etc? They were just other animals white Noah packed? That makes sense


----------



## deanrd (Sep 21, 2017)

Steven_R said:


> The Tower of Babel, of course. When God made everyone speak different languages, He also made them all different races and sent them all over the world.
> 
> When a story simply doesn't make sense, just insert the phrase "God did it" and it'll all work out.


True story.

Just ask the Republicans who think college is bad for America.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

DriftingSand said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...


We need to redo the art we draw showing Noah putting two Chinese, two giraffe, two blacks, two lions, two Arabs, two elephant


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

DriftingSand said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


I told you these stories have been embellished over time. We we're told it was just Noah and family now it sounds like the love boat cruise ship


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 21, 2017)

The shit that piled up to the ceiling must have been really bad for Noah.


----------



## yiostheoy (Sep 21, 2017)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?


Old thread -- same foolish questions.


----------



## yiostheoy (Sep 21, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?
> ...


Why did you resurrect this foolishness?

Moses decided he needed a flood story for his book.

So he took one he heard about from the Egyptian scribes attributed to Gilgamesh.


----------



## Votto (Sep 21, 2017)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



The monkeys stupid.


----------



## Votto (Sep 21, 2017)

It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event.  After all, to even know what a flood is one would need to  have a point of reference.  In fact, all ancient cultures in that region had a flood myth, even though they deviated from each other in some form or fashion.

So the bigger question becomes, how big was it?  Did it merely cover the known world in that region or was it really world wide?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

yiostheoy said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I though how it must feel to be Chinese. To have a well documented history that goes back farther than the Noah story. Then to read how this flood wiped out every human on earth yet your history somehow doesn't remember this flood.

So we know it's just another allegory. Next

And should I have started another Noah thread? Do you get paid more the more threads that are started?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2017)

Votto said:


> It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event.  After all, to even know what a flood is one would need to  have a point of reference.  In fact, all ancient cultures in that region had a flood myth, even though they deviated from each other in some form or fashion.
> 
> So the bigger question becomes, how big was it?  Did it merely cover the known world in that region or was it really world wide?


The Egyptian Chinese Mesopotamia Peruvian and sumarian didn't document it and the took good records.


----------



## Taz (Sep 22, 2017)

sealybobo said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Too bad they didn't pick some smarter black peeps.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 22, 2017)

Taz said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...


And whites! Even Asians. Think about it. Kim Jungs ancestor was on that boat.

But so was my forefathers.

Why did god wipe the earth of assholes just to repopulate it with new assholes?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 22, 2017)

DriftingSand said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > DriftingSand said:
> ...



First of all, it's a fairy tale in that we don't actually know exactly when this event occurred

The question as to exactly when Noah’s Flood occurred has seen a variety of different answers from scholars through the years. The only possible way such a date could be obtained is if the documented evidence which exists provides enough clues to pinpoint the event.

Lets say we agree Noah happened 3000 bc.

The *Liangzhu culture* (3400–2250 BC) was the last Neolithic jade culture in the Yangtze River Delta of China. The culture was highly stratified, as jade, silk, ivory and lacquer artifacts were found exclusively in elite burials, while pottery was more commonly found in the burial plots of poorer individuals. 

There is no documentation in their history of a flood wiping out the Liangzhu culture.  How do you explain this?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 22, 2017)

Learning about Ancient *Mesopotamian* Religion and *Culture*. Located in the Tigris-Euphrates valley was the land of *Mesopotamia*. It was here that the world's first cities were founded between 4000 – 3500 BC by the Sumerian people. They developed their own belief system, with a variety of gods and goddesses.

And there was no great flood that wiped them out.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 22, 2017)

Votto said:


> It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event.  After all, to even know what a flood is one would need to  have a point of reference.  In fact, all ancient cultures in that region had a flood myth, even though they deviated from each other in some form or fashion.
> 
> So the bigger question becomes, how big was it?  Did it merely cover the known world in that region or was it really world wide?



  There are more than 200 flood myths from different cultures and regions around the world from places and people who never heard of Noah.


*Index by Region*

Europe
Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace
Roman
Scandinavian, German
Celtic, Welsh
Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy
Turkey

Near East
Sumerian
Egypt, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Islamic
Persian, Zoroastrian

Africa
Cameroon
Masai (East Africa), Komililo Nandi, Kwaya (Lake Victoria)
Southwest Tanzania, Pygmy, Ababua (northern Zaire), Kikuyu (Kenya), Bakongo (west Zaire), Bachokwe? (southern Zaire), Lower Congo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua(Congo River, southeast Zaire)
Yoruba (southwest Nigeria), Efik-Ibibio (Nigeria), Ekoi (Nigeria)
Mandingo (Ivory Coast)

Asia
Vogul
Samoyed (north Siberia)
Yenisey-Ostyak (north central Siberia), Kamchadale (northeast Siberia)
Altaic (central Asia), Tuvinian (Soyot) (north of Mongolia)
Mongolia, Buryat (eastern Siberia)
Sagaiye (eastern Siberia)
Russian
Hindu, Bhil (central India), Kamar (Raipur District, Central India), Assam
Tamil (southern India)
Lepcha (Sikkim), Tibet, Singpho (Assam), Lushai (Assam), Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China), Lolo (southwestern China), Jino (southern Yunnan, China), Karen(Burma), Chingpaw (Upper Burma)
China
Korea
Munda (north-central India), Santal (Bengal), Ho (southwestern Bengal)
Bahnar (Cochin China), Kammu (northern Thailand)
Andaman Islands (Bay of Bengal)
Zhuang (China), Sui (southern Guizhou, China), Shan (Burma)
Tsuwo (Formosa interior), Bunun (Formosa interior), Ami (eastern Taiwan)
Benua-Jakun (Malay Peninsula), Kelantan (Malay Peninsula), Ifugao (Philippines), Kiangan Ifugao, Atá (Philippines), Mandaya (Philippines), Tinguian (Luzon, Philippines)
Batak (Sumatra), Nias (an island west of Sumatra), Engano (another island west of Sumatra), Dusun (British North Borneo), Dyak (Borneo), Ot-Danom (Dutch Borneo), Toradja (central Celebes), Alfoor (between Celebes and New Guinea), Rotti (southwest of Timor), Nage (Flores)

Australia
Arnhem Land (northern Northern Territory)
Maung (Goulburn Islands, Arnhem Land), Gunwinggu (northern Arnhem Land)
Gumaidj (Arnhem Land)
Manger (Arnhem Land)
Fitzroy River area (Western Australia)
Australian, Mount Elliot (coastal Queensland), Western Australia, Andingari (South Australia), Wiranggu (South Australia), Narrinyeri (South Australia), Victoria,Lake Tyres (Victoria), Kurnai (Gippsland, Victoria), southeast Australian
Maori (New Zealand)

Pacific Islands
Kabadi (New Guinea), Valman (northern New Guinea), Mamberao River (Irian Jaya), Samo-Kubo (western Papua New Guinea), Papua New Guinea
Palau Islands (Micronesia), western Carolines
New Hebrides, Lifou (one of the Loyalty Islands), Fiji
Samoa, Nanumanga (Tuvalu, South Pacific), Mangaia (Cook Islands), Rakaanga (Cook Islands), Raiatea (Leeward Group, French Polynesia), Tahiti, Hawaii

North America
Innuit, Eskimo (Orowignarak, Alaska), Norton Sound Eskimo, Central Eskimo, Tchiglit Eskimo (Arctic Ocean), Herschel Island Eskimo, Netsilik Eskimo,Greenlander
Tlingit (southern Alaska coast), Hareskin (Alaska), Tinneh (Alaska and south), Loucheux (Dindjie) (Alaska), Dogrib and Slave (Tinneh tribes), Kaska (northern inland British Columbia), Thompson Indians (British Columbia), Sarcee (Alberta), Tsetsaut
Haida (Queen Charlotte Is., British Columbia), Tsimshian (British Columbia)
Kwakiutl (British Columbia)
Kootenay (southeast British Columbia), Squamish (British Columbia), Bella Coola (British Columbia), Lillooet (Green River, British Columbia), Makah (Cape Flattery, Washington), Klallam (northwest Washington), Skokomish (Washington), Skagit (Washington), Quillayute (Washington), Nisqually (Washington), Twana(Puget Sound, Washington), Kathlamet
Cascade Mountains
Spokana, Nez Perce, Cayuse (eastern Washington), Yakima (Washington), Warm Springs (Oregon), Joshua (southern Oregon), Smith River (northern California coast), Wintu (north central California), Maidu (central California), Northern Miwok (central California), Tuleyome Miwok (near Clear Lake, California),Olamentko Miwok (Bodega Bay, California) Ohlone (San Francisco to Monterey, California)
Kato (Mendocino County, California)
Shasta (northern California interior), Pomo (north central California), Salinan (California), Yuma (western Arizona, southern California), Havasupai (lower Colorado River)
Ashochimi (California)
Yurok (north California coast), Blackfoot (Alberta and Montana), Cree (Canada), Timagami Ojibway (Canada), Chippewa (Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin),Ottawa, Menomini (Wisconsin-Michigan border), Cheyenne (Minnesota), Yellowstone, Montagnais (northern Gulf of St. Lawrence), Micmac (eastern Maritime Canada), Algonquin (upper Ottowa River), Lenape (Delaware) (Delaware to New York)
Cherokee (Great Lakes area; eastern Tennessee)
Mandan (North Dakota), Lakota
Choctaw (Mississippi), Natchez (Lower Mississippi)
Chitimacha (Southern Louisiana)
Caddo (Oklahoma, Arkansas), Pawnee (Nebraska)
Navajo (Four Corners area), Jicarilla Apache (northeastern New Mexico)
Sia (northeast Arizona)
Acagchemem (near San Juan Capistrano, California), Luiseño (Southern California), Pima (southwest Arizona), Papago (Arizona), Hopi (northeast Arizona), Zuni(New Mexico)

Central America
Tarascan (northern Michoacan, Mexico), Michoacan (Mexico)
Yaqui (Sonoran, Northern Mexico), Tarahumara (Northern Mexico), Huichol (western Mexico), Cora (east of the Huichols), Tepecano (southeast of the Huichols),Tepehua (eastern Mexico), Toltec (Mexico), Nahua (central Mexico), Tlaxcalan (central Mexico)
Tlapanec (south central Mexico), Mixtec (northern Oaxaca, Mexico), Zapotec (Oaxaca, southern Mexico), Trique (Oaxaca, southern Mexico)
Totonac (eastern Mexico)
Chol (southern Mexico), Tzeltal (Chiapas, southern Mexico), Quiché (Guatemala), Maya (southern Mexico and Guatemala)
Popoluca (Veracruz, Mexico)
Nicaragua, Panama
Carib (Antilles)

South America
Acawai (Orinoco), Arekuna (Guyana), Makiritare (Venezuela), Macusi (British Guyana)
Muysca (Colombia), Yaruro (southern Venezuela)
Yanomamö (southern Venezuela)
Tamanaque (Orinoco), Arawak (Guyana), Pamary, Abedery, and Kataushy (Purus R., Brazil), Ipurina (Upper Amazon)
Jivaro (eastern Ecuador), Shuar (Andes)
Murato (eastern Ecuador)
Cañari (Quito, Ecuador)
Guanca and Chiquito (Peru)
Ancasmarca (near Cuzco, Peru), Canelos Quechua, Quechua, Inca (Peru), Colla (high Andes)
Chiriguano (southeast Bolivia)
Chorote (Eastern Paraguay)
Eastern Brazil (Rio de Janiero region), Eastern Brazil (Cape Frio region), Caraya (Araguaia River, central Brazil), Coroado (south Brazil)
Araucania (coastal Chile)
Toba (northern Argentina)
Selk'nam (southern tip of Argentina)
Yamana (Tierra del Fuego)



Flood Stories from Around the World


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 22, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event.  After all, to even know what a flood is one would need to  have a point of reference.  In fact, all ancient cultures in that region had a flood myth, even though they deviated from each other in some form or fashion.
> ...


.


hobelim said:


> There are more than 200 flood myths from different cultures and regions around the world from places and people who never heard of Noah.




if it were the same flood who wrote all the different stories ...


----------



## mhansen2 (Sep 22, 2017)

Maybe this has been discussed before (I'm not reading 163 pages of posts), but if God killed all the people in the world except those on Noah's Ark, how many pregnant women did God kill and, in so doing, kill their unborn babies?  What sins did the fetuses commit?  Isn't this a form of abortion, something the Catholic Church abhors?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 22, 2017)

mhansen2 said:


> Maybe this has been discussed before (I'm not reading 163 pages of posts), but if God killed all the people in the world except those on Noah's Ark, how many pregnant women did God kill and, in so doing, kill their unborn babies?  What sins did the fetuses commit?  Isn't this a form of abortion, something the Catholic Church abhors?



He waited for every child to be born and then he drowned them.  That's much better than abortion.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 22, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...




very funny.

It is interesting to note that many of the stories share similarities. Many stories have someone being warned in a dream, the people who died were messed up, the survivors had to float around on something for weeks, and when the water settled they had to repopulate the land because so many people died during the flood, even in desert places...

For the many regions affected all over the world it would have been the end of the world.


The only possible natural phenomenon that could possibly account for the details of what was described as a month long worldwide deluge of unrelenting torrential rain and superstorms is a large meteor impact over a large body of water.


----------



## RodISHI (Sep 23, 2017)

> The only possible natural phenomenon that could possibly account for the details of what was described as a month long worldwide deluge of unrelenting torrential rain and superstorms is a large meteor impact over a large body of water.


Perhaps when there were still dinosaurs actually roaming the land........today it is the spiritual flood or deluge that gets most of our attention if we are watching and searching for truth.
____________________________________________________________________________________________

The word flood is  מַבּוּל   _mabbuwl, _which also means deluge. The root of the word isיָבַל_ yabal, _to bring, lead, carry, conduct, bear along, conduct, to be borne along, giving a sense to the use of this word to describe what happens in the spirit as the flesh is still struggling or holding on to carnal thoughts and precepts.  יָבַל yâbal, yaw-bal'; a primitive root; properly, to flow; causatively, to bring (especially with pomp):—bring (forth), carry, lead (forth). Noah means 'rest'.

water _tebah,_*תֵּבָה* water, piss, watersprings, washing, watercourse, waterflood, watering, variant - water of the feet, urine, of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment (figuratively). Those still in the search living in carnal ways (with motes, beams and sin) can be watered through piss of the feet that tread evil forces, tread grapes, treading on serpents, etc...this is why feet need washed.....

The Ark, in this case is described as a certain location with a container. This is within where the spirit of goodness is kept (that place - location in the spirit is a place in the mind). It is made of Gopher wood is what is written describing what we as carnal humans would think of as wood but it is actually the temple gate of Purim, meaning made from 'spiritual gold', that portion within us that is kept by God's spirit with us that was instilled by breath which has a pure heart of faith.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

RodISHI said:


> > The only possible natural phenomenon that could possibly account for the details of what was described as a month long worldwide deluge of unrelenting torrential rain and superstorms is a large meteor impact over a large body of water.
> 
> 
> Perhaps when there were still dinosaurs actually roaming the land........today it is the spiritual flood or deluge that gets most of our attention if we are watching and searching for truth.
> .




Thanks but I was dealing primarily with the question of what natural event could possibly have resulted in the details recorded in the hundreds of flood myths worldwide that are no more than 8000-10000 years old. The story of noah isn't the only story. Many others also include moral lessons attempting to explain the catastrophe.

That being said, I agree that there are many levels of meanings to the story of Noah that go over the heads of people who get all hung up on kangaroos.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

Votto said:


> It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event.  After all, to even know what a flood is one would need to  have a point of reference.  In fact, all ancient cultures in that region had a flood myth, even though they deviated from each other in some form or fashion.
> 
> So the bigger question becomes, how big was it?  Did it merely cover the known world in that region or was it really world wide?


"It is with 100% certainty that the flood in Genesis references a real flood event."


  So, all you are saying is that "Surely there was a flood somewhere, at some point".  That's deep, man.  Far out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

hobelim said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> > > The only possible natural phenomenon that could possibly account for the details of what was described as a month long worldwide deluge of unrelenting torrential rain and superstorms is a large meteor impact over a large body of water.
> ...


Yes, given enough time, we can invent all kinds of special meanings to a story and graft them onto it, as if they were always there.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 24, 2017)

.


RodISHI said:


> The word flood is מַבּוּל _mabbuwl, _which also means deluge ...





hobelim said:


> That being said, I agree that there are many levels of meanings to the story of Noah that go over the heads of people who get all hung up on kangaroos.



and people that reference the vocabulary of an unverified book to give their own special insight into a meaning for a universal religion that would be self decipherable if authentic and void of requiring personalized interpretation.





BreezeWood said:


> if it were the same flood who wrote all the different stories ...





hobelim said:


> very funny.



that's not a joke hobelim, who would have recorded the flood from different parts of the planet if it were the same flood as referenced where all were killed but one small group of people - the knowledge of that flood would not exist as those few survivors were not in the locations you have addressed. - there would be no recording at all if true.

the meaning of Noah's parable is what is real just as many openly known aspects of antiquity's lore are real what is phony are those people that knowingly misconstrue them for their own personal gain, christians and others through their written documents.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > RodISHI said:
> ...


  Invent?  I don't think so.

When Jesus said,"eat my flesh" people have imagined all sorts of meanings, some extremely bizarre. Some say it is a memorial ceremony. Some say it is  about eating the flesh of God. Some say Jesus was insane.

Kosher law is all about what flesh of which creature is either clean or unclean.

People have lived and died for thousands of years, believers and unbelievers alike,  without ever making the connection between kosher law and what Jesus said even though it was always there, not to mention obvious..


When a person learns the hidden teaching of any fable or fairy tale is it an invention or a discovery?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"When Jesus said,"eat my flesh" people have imagined all sorts of meanings, some extremely bizarre. "

Yes, exactly.  And , given time, they will invent more meanings.  So it goes.  for instance, your "Kosher Law" invention.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Jesus didn't say these things in a vacuum or just anywhere to anyone.  He said it when there was no such thing as freedom of speech during a time of brutal roman oppression in Israel to a bunch of observant Jews whose lives revolved around what flesh of which creature they could or could't eat... according to the law.

The author of any fairy tale has a teaching in mind. People can speculate forever about what that teaching might be but there can only be one right way to interpret the story that was intended to be discovered by the author from the beginning, and once discovered and reveal, it is obvious and cannot be unseen....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"The author of any fairy tale has a teaching in mind."


And the fact that two different people can look at a fairy tale and garner two different, even contradictory meanings shows that we often take away what we want from fairy tales, art, etc.  Surely you agree that people manage to co-opt religious texts to suit their own neuroses and fetishes.  I mean, surely you do not think it is coincidence that religious people always seem to find justification for their own bad behavior in their religious texts.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Of course I agree that "people manage to co-opt religious texts to suit their own neuroses and fetishes"..and  "religious people always seem to find justification for their own bad behavior in their religious texts" .

Thats another ball of wax.

Anyway what better way to sweep the world clean once and for all from of all of these religious charlatans than to make clear what the teaching from God preserved by the authors and compelled into the future actually is...

the power in that liberating knowledge being given back to the people would forever change the landscape of the world as completely as Noah's flood.

the celestial powers will be shaken, stars will fall from the sky, mountains will be swept clean away, valleys will be lifted up, and a new heaven and earth will emerge from the ashes of the old.



Examine the evidence carefully.  The chances are that I am just another screwball.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


I admit, I am not one to ascribe deep, hidden meanings to the stories in religious texts. The moral of the Noah story is to fear God. Period. And people take that story very literally in that sense. They use it to undermine our scientific knowledge, by saying God can undo it all whenever the urge strikes Him. They insist scientists are all incompetent or are all liars, when our scientific knowledge contradicts the veracity of these fairy tales. You can watch that happen here on a daily basis.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




You are going about it the wrong way.

Using scientific knowledge to refute the veracity of scripture is like using scientific knowledge to refute the veracity of Pinocchio.

You would do better just pointing out the teaching and moral of the story than to cite scientific facts to argue with someone as insane, feeble minded, or deliberately deceptive as any person who would profess to believe that puppets can come to life or little boys can be turned into donkeys for life because it says so in the book..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 24, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


Not sure what planet you are living on, but on this one, people insist on the literal meaning of those fairy tales. And yes, we must stand our ground when they use this belief to undermine our hard-earned knowledge. I have no interest whatsoever in litigating the morality or hidden meanings of those fairy tales. I guess I will leave that to you.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




However many people there may be who insist on the literal meaning of those fairy tales there is not one person living on this planet with a second grade education who actually  believes that a triune god diddled a virgin to father himself so that he could become fully human without a human father. No one believes that a deranged child rapist was a holy man and the greatest prophet of God. No one believes that God gives a crap about what you eat for dinner.

It is all pretense.

Like I said only the feeble minded, the insane, deceivers, or the deceived would profess such absurdities.

The number of deceived far outnumber the ones doing the deceiving.

The only reason anyone can deceived another person about the meaning of scripture at all  is because the intended teaching still remains hidden.

Only the revealed truth can free the deceived from the captivity of the deceiver.


When the truth is known no one can be fooled and deception has no power,  even over a child.


Don't just stand your ground. Be a little militant. You would do better making the case that people who would make such preposterous claims and profess ridiculous beliefs that contradict well known proven scientific facts about reality are unfit to hold any public office or position of authority that requires the public trust and should be banned from owning guns, working with children and operating heavy machinery by reason of insanity,  *non compos mentis.*

Otherwise they might try to establish laws and customs that reflect their perverse views of the world, criminalize intelligent thought, plunge the world into unrelenting state of war, and we'd end up with millions of people incarcerated over bullshit and  a complete moron will arise to blindly lead us to complete destruction.


Wouldn't that be fucked up.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 24, 2017)

BreezeWood said:


> .
> 
> 
> RodISHI said:
> ...




The many hundred flood myths are from many different places and diverse regions from all over the planet. Obviously there were survivors in these different places who told the story of the flood and inserted their own superstitious explanations. Some survived by climbing trees or floating on logs or makeshift rafts. What they described was all the same. A sudden burst of torrential rain and superstorms that lasted for weeks and swept away towns and villages drowning almost everyone, even in the middle of the deserts ..

Look what happened in Houston after only 6 days of torrential rain. Use your imagination in a rational way and just think for a minute what would have happened worldwide after 40 days of torrential rain far worse than that.

Like I said the only natural explanation would be a meteor impact over a large body of water that would have instantly vaporized a months worth of torrential rain into the atmosphere not to mention the immediate and devastating effect on coastal communities from mega tsunamis encircling the globe..

Still this doesn't mean that an extraterrestrial force wasn't involved by nudging a big rock in earths direction because people had degenerated into orcs or something.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 25, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"However many people there may be who insist on the literal meaning of those fairy tales there is not one person living on this planet with a second grade education who actually believes that a triune god diddled a virgin to father himself so that he could become fully human without a human father. 


Uh... yes there are.  Or, at least they claim to believe it.: Most Americans believe in Jesus’ virgin birth

*"
73%

Most U.S. adults believe Jesus was born of a virgin, including one-third of Americans with no specific religious affiliation."*

   And the same goes for the other magical nonsense in the Bible.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 25, 2017)

hobelim said:


> BreezeWood said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


I don't think that what you are suggesting re: rain is even possible, even with a meteor strike,.  the atmosphere simply cannot hld that much water.  A hurricane is able to drop that much water in one place only because a) it hovered in one spot for a while, and b) was being replenished constantly by ocean water and by surrounding areas that were NOT dropping precipitation.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 25, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Obviously there were survivors in these different places who told the story of the flood and inserted their own superstitious explanations.




you go to far, the Almighty had made the decision Noah's group were the last reaming that represented the correct Triumph for humanities readmission your indiscretion negates the very religion the desert religions are based on. 

there would be no recordings by anyone else for _that_ flood to have occurred for the stated reason. is nonnegotiable ...


----------



## hobelim (Sep 25, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


 

That just shows how dire the situation really is. Thats 73% of the people out there in a state of cognitive dissonance. Might as well believe in the Zombie apocalypse or the night of the living dead.

Is there any wonder why things are so screwed up?

Or why a pompous ass was elected with their assistance to "fix things" only to flip them off while rigging the economy and plundering the national budget for personal gain,  desecrating the highest public office and highest levels of government with a cadre of diseased monkeys in suits vomiting toxic scum and dedicated only to the deconstruction of the founding principles of this country, a free press, equal justice under the law, the balance of power, a representative government, and liberty itself,  in broad daylight and in full view of everybody?

They are so confident in the power of their deceptions to keep their supporters confused, blinded  and paralyzed that they put absolutely no shade on their shit.

Astonishing!


----------



## Hawkins (Sep 25, 2017)

Taz said:


> If there was a flood and Noah didn't have any asians or blacks on his boat, where did all the asians and blacks come from?



We don't need to assume the flood occurred 6000 years ago, as the 6000 years are calculated from genealogy. Genealogy however is not an accurate mean for year calculation. 

Scientists found that Neanderthal genes are in humans. Where do the Neanderthal genes coming from. That's about the same question. It's because humans ever mated with other species of homo erectus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 25, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


And frightening....


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 25, 2017)

Hilarious how the haters are so insecure and know they are wrong so they need to argue their denial is the way to think. 

See anyone arguing that Greek gods are fictional or the earth is not flat?  Nope. Those are obvious fallacies. 

But the God of the Jews and Christians must consume their time to oppose because they know its true.


----------



## BreezeWood (Sep 25, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> But the God of the Jews and Christians must consume their time to oppose because they know its true.




the desert religions have misconstrued the truth for their own grandizement irregardless the beliefs of those that honestly seek truth and justice.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 25, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Hilarious how the haters are so insecure and know they are wrong so they need to argue their denial is the way to think.
> 
> See anyone arguing that Greek gods are fictional or the earth is not flat?  Nope. Those are obvious fallacies.
> 
> But the God of the Jews and Christians must consume their time to oppose because they know its true.


No, and that is so very dumb. It just so happens that this is the USMessage Board, so, naturally, we run into more christians here and in our country. For instance, I don't see a lot of Zeusists trying to place their magical nonsense above science in the evolution and climate change threads, or in our government. Your logic is embarrassing.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 26, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> hobelim said:
> 
> 
> > BreezeWood said:
> ...




According to the story the atmosphere didn't hold the water...

Burckle crater is 25 times larger than meteor crater in Arizona and dates to the approximate time of the flood stories...

That would have been one mighty big splash not to mention the billions of metric tons of water that would have been instantly vaporized into the atmosphere as it plunged through more than 11,000 feet of ocean.

Although it can be easily dismissed that God did it, some type of a worldwide deluge actually happened given the many worldwide flood stories.


If not a meteor, what other natural event could have possibly caused such an unprecedented catastrophic flood on all continents?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Sep 26, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > hobelim said:
> ...


"That would have been one mighty big splash not to mention the billions of metric tons of water that would have been instantly vaporized into the atmosphere "

"Although it can be easily dismissed that God did it, some type of a worldwide deluge actually happened given the many worldwide flood stories."

that makes zero sense, as those people did not even know the rest of the world existed back then.  To them, "worldwide" meant, "to the horizon". These stories are just evidence that there has always been local flooding, and humans like  to romanticize their legends. they are not evidence of a worldwide flood in any way.


----------



## hobelim (Sep 27, 2017)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> that makes zero sense, as those people did not even know the rest of the world existed back then. To them, "worldwide" meant, "to the horizon". These stories are just evidence that there has always been local flooding, and humans like to romanticize their legends. they are not evidence of a worldwide flood in any way.




The flood myths are from every continent around the world. Thats why I said it must have been a global catastrophe. The people of antiquity would have known the difference between seasonal flooding, a really big flood and an extinction level event which is what was described in all the stories.

Even after a 100 or 500 year flood, life continues exactly as it was before when the waters recede.

These flood stories describe a sudden torrential deluge that lasted for weeks and killed so many people and destroyed so many towns and swept away so many villages that the few who did survive had to start over from scratch.

That is a common theme which suggests a global disaster of an unimaginable magnitude that  could only have been the descriptions of the aftermath of a celestial object hitting the ocean...

Nothing else could  cause what all these ancient people from all over the world described that would not have been a wild exaggeration of a storytellers imagination but an accurate description of the aftermath of an actual extinction level event.


There has always been local flooding? Pft. Nothing even remotely like that has ever happened since anywhere in the world..


----------



## Taz (Sep 27, 2017)

hobelim said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > that makes zero sense, as those people did not even know the rest of the world existed back then. To them, "worldwide" meant, "to the horizon". These stories are just evidence that there has always been local flooding, and humans like to romanticize their legends. they are not evidence of a worldwide flood in any way.
> ...


So where's the geological proof of a global flood?


----------

