0
   

Bible history.

 
 
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:34 pm
http://img.yawoot.com/c17306a724eee6d713da1d7589d4fbf7.jpg
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 6,779 • Replies: 69
No top replies

 
Grouch
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2009 04:40 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Omg A Photoshop!!!!!!!
xexon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Apr, 2009 09:46 am
@Grouch,
It's still just something on paper.

But religious people take many things as truth with nothing more than that.



x
marcus cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 02:35 pm
@xexon,
Were Dinosaurs on Noah?s Ark? - Answers in Genesis
Grouch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 02:45 pm
@marcus cv,



The problem with that, is that it is inconstant with any Christian belief that evolution isn't real/never happend. You can't have a root "kind" (aka ancestor) without evolution. On top of that, if we were to assume that the flood really happened as described in the bible, then you are taking about an evolutionary time frame so short that it completely negates any creationist argument that evolution can't happen because it take too long.
0 Replies
 
NotHereForLong
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 May, 2009 02:58 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
You really believe that stuff Marcus? A website that's against evolution that tries to explain Noah's arc using super evolution and a story that contradicts the fossil record?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 09:19 am
@marcus cv,


:rollinglaugh:

Surely you don't believe this nonsense. Clearly Noah's arc is a parable , any attempt to try and explain it with a modern understanding of physics and geology would just make it look absolutely ridiculous.

There isn't enough water on the earth to flood the planet and even if there was, such a large volume of water falling to earth at orbital velocity would become superheated and sterilize everything on earth (if you buy the whole ice shield thing), whether or not all the world's animals could fit in a boat would be the least of noah's problems.
0 Replies
 
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 06:20 am
@NotHereForLong,
NotHereForLong;65339 wrote:
You really believe that stuff Marcus? A website that's against evolution that tries to explain Noah's arc using super evolution and a story that contradicts the fossil record?


The fossil record? If anything, the fossil record is Evolutions biggest embarrassment. I always hear believers in Evolution brag about the fossil record, as if it actually supports Evolution. What a bunch of nonsense. If you check the fossil record, you will not find even one transional that everyone could agree on is a transional. Now Darwin stated long ago, that if Evolution were true, we would find numerous transionals. Yet after 100 years, where are they? Now I can show you more evidence for Noahs Ark, then you could ever show me for evolution. Including numerous eye witiness accounts.

consider the link below.

Noah's Ark Info
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 07:34 am
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;65973 wrote:
The fossil record? If anything, the fossil record is Evolutions biggest embarrassment. I always hear believers in Evolution brag about the fossil record, as if it actually supports Evolution. What a bunch of nonsense. If you check the fossil record, you will not find even one transional that everyone could agree on is a transional. Now Darwin stated long ago, that if Evolution were true, we would find numerous transionals. Yet after 100 years, where are they? Now I can show you more evidence for Noahs Ark, then you could ever show me for evolution. Including numerous eye witiness accounts.

consider the link below.

Noah's Ark Info


This is the biggest lie that is perpetuated by creationists today, and most rookie creationists continue this lie without actually bothering to see if it is true. Why? Because it supports their cause so they assume it is true.

I can list a handful:

Tiktaalik
Archeopteryx
Dimetrodon
Basilasurus
Hyracotherium
Sinornis
Gerobatrachus hottorni
Odontochelys semistestacea
Anchisaurus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Bohlinia
Indohyus
Morganucodon
Zeuglodon
Heteronectes
Pezosiren portelli
Thrinaxodon
Ambulocetus
Ichthyostega
Pederpes


*these are your "supposedly" non-existent transitionals. :rollinglaugh:


List of transitional fossils: Information from Answers.com





http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm455/teeveesfrank/hominids2.jpg
abbandonedallhope
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jul, 2009 07:20 pm
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;65973 wrote:
The fossil record? If anything, the fossil record is Evolutions biggest embarrassment. I always hear believers in Evolution brag about the fossil record, as if it actually supports Evolution. What a bunch of nonsense. If you check the fossil record, you will not find even one transional that everyone could agree on is a transional. Now Darwin stated long ago, that if Evolution were true, we would find numerous transionals. Yet after 100 years, where are they? Now I can show you more evidence for Noahs Ark, then you could ever show me for evolution. Including numerous eye witiness accounts.

consider the link below.

Noah's Ark Info


i have to say that is the worst website i have seen to date. Stating accusations of an ark with out any kind of proof and people actually believing it? "OMG! There is wood looking things in the snow! must be Noah's Ark!!!" come on really?
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 04:30 am
@abbandonedallhope,
abbandonedallhope;65986 wrote:
i have to say that is the worst website i have seen to date. Stating accusations of an ark with out any kind of proof and people actually believing it? "OMG! There is wood looking things in the snow! must be Noah's Ark!!!" come on really?


This is how creationism works. Believe first, look for evidence later.
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 05:27 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Good to see some of our religous posters of old are returning for some more a$$ whoopin's.

Campbell, You cannot honestly say that 'evidence' (I use the term loosely) is anything more than an old mans ramblings. If that really were the Ark. Don't you think some of the Wealthier of the Churches would have mounted a mutilimillion Dollar salvage operation along time ago?

Come on, even for you that's pretty bloody weak.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 08:13 am
@Numpty,
http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Ark4.jpg

http://www.mexicobeachcwc.com/Ark3.jpeg


This is your evidence? A grainy photo?

Well the "supposed" ark is completely indistinguishable. It looks to me that the circled part is just part of the crevice on the mountain. If they actually wanted to know if the ark is actually there they would use google earth but instead they cling to grainy photos....how very suspicious.


According to the article some Russian soldiers actually went inside of it but they were killed (how convenient?). :rollinglaugh:
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 04:22 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;65974 wrote:
This is the biggest lie that is perpetuated by creationists today, and most rookie creationists continue this lie without actually bothering to see if it is true. Why? Because it supports their cause so they assume it is true.

I can list a handful:

Tiktaalik
Archeopteryx
Dimetrodon
Basilasurus
Hyracotherium
Sinornis
Gerobatrachus hottorni
Odontochelys semistestacea
Anchisaurus
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Bohlinia
Indohyus
Morganucodon
Zeuglodon
Heteronectes
Pezosiren portelli
Thrinaxodon
Ambulocetus
Ichthyostega
Pederpes


*these are your "supposedly" non-existent transitionals. :rollinglaugh:


List of transitional fossils: Information from Answers.com





http://i319.photobucket.com/albums/mm455/teeveesfrank/hominids2.jpg


You call that evidence? I see a bunch of skulls. Anyone can produce skulls and call them whatever they want. When I talk about a real transitionals, I'm talking about a transitional like that fake one that National Geographic tried to pass of as a real transitional some years back. It showed to different species merged into one fossil. Now that was a transitional, expect it was a fake from China. I'm not impressed with a bunch of extinct animals that they try to pass off as transitional either. A real transitional, would look like the fake one published by National Geographic. And if evolution were true, that is what one would expect to see. Yet we don't see any like that, do we?
Campbell34
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2009 04:44 pm
@abbandonedallhope,
abbandonedallhope;65986 wrote:
i have to say that is the worst website i have seen to date. Stating accusations of an ark with out any kind of proof and people actually believing it? "OMG! There is wood looking things in the snow! must be Noah's Ark!!!" come on really?



It actually has more proof then evolution, and we have numerous eyewitiness accounts that span many years. Even photo's from space show what appears to be a manmade object high up on Mt. Ararat which appears to be broken in two. And it was a man named Ed Davis who stated long before such pictures were in existance, that he himself had got very close to the Ark, and he reported that it was broken in two. He also stated that it had three decks and it appeared to him to have cages inside. Russian pilots back around 1917 also reported a large ship like object high up on the Mountain. They said it was the size of a battleship, with a large door on the side. There are numerous reports like this, and some of the accounts are really amazing. The only way one could dismiss these accounts, is if you believe all of these people are bold face liars. Which given their numbers, seems unlikely.
I found the David duckworth story the most interesting. For that story confirmed another story that was unrelate to his. His story will be found in the link below.

The link below is a handful of such stories, there are many more.

Searching for Noah's Ark by Bruce L. Gerig
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2009 03:51 am
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;66017 wrote:
You call that evidence? I see a bunch of skulls. Anyone can produce skulls and call them whatever they want. When I talk about a real transitionals, I'm talking about a transitional like that fake one that National Geographic tried to pass of as a real transitional some years back. It showed to different species merged into one fossil. Now that was a transitional, expect it was a fake from China. I'm not impressed with a bunch of extinct animals that they try to pass off as transitional either. A real transitional, would look like the fake one published by National Geographic. And if evolution were true, that is what one would expect to see. Yet we don't see any like that, do we?


You claim there are no transitionals and then I see you completely ignored my list of 20 names along with the complete list on answers.com


Way to plead ignorance. good job! :thumbup:
0 Replies
 
abbandonedallhope
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:47 pm
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;66003 wrote:
This is how creationism works. Believe first, look for evidence later.


its more like believe now...deny all evidence later...Very Happy
0 Replies
 
abbandonedallhope
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Jul, 2009 04:51 pm
@Campbell34,
Campbell34;66018 wrote:
It actually has more proof then evolution, and we have numerous eyewitiness accounts that span many years. Even photo's from space show what appears to be a manmade object high up on Mt. Ararat which appears to be broken in two. And it was a man named Ed Davis who stated long before such pictures were in existance, that he himself had got very close to the Ark, and he reported that it was broken in two. He also stated that it had three decks and it appeared to him to have cages inside. Russian pilots back around 1917 also reported a large ship like object high up on the Mountain. They said it was the size of a battleship, with a large door on the side. There are numerous reports like this, and some of the accounts are really amazing. The only way one could dismiss these accounts, is if you believe all of these people are bold face liars. Which given their numbers, seems unlikely.
I found the David duckworth story the most interesting. For that story confirmed another story that was unrelate to his. His story will be found in the link below.

The link below is a handful of such stories, there are many more.

Searching for Noah's Ark by Bruce L. Gerig


Oh ok i see!!. well no...not really. You need some therapy or something man...
i have seen "Alien" Pictures too, but that doesnt mean they are any more true than this...besides were is your documented proof of what these people seen...i dont mean some guy says that they seen it...i can do that too.
"dude omg! so i was like talking to joe, and he met this guy by the bridge that went to the andes and like totally met god!."
seriously thats your proof? thats pretty sad dude...
0 Replies
 
Carico
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 03:48 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
:rollinglaugh: Dinosaurs are the figment of the imaginations of archeologists just like half-men half beasts are. :rollinglaugh: All archeologists do is find unidentified bones in the ground from many animals and humans, piece them together to form made-up creatures and construct elaborate stories about them that no one in history can verify. That's called science fiction and artwork, not science. Very Happy But those who can't think for themselves worship scientists as infallible gods and are thus brainwashed to believe everything they say. Wink
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Jul, 2009 04:13 am
@Carico,
Carico;66161 wrote:
:rollinglaugh: Dinosaurs are the figment of the imaginations of archeologists just like half-men half beasts are. :rollinglaugh: All archeologists do is find unidentified bones in the ground from many animals and humans, piece them together to form made-up creatures and construct elaborate stories about them that no one in history can verify. That's called science fiction and artwork, not science. Very Happy But those who can't think for themselves worship scientists as infallible gods and are thus brainwashed to believe everything they say. Wink


Hmmm, interesting words you speak. Clearly you know alot about archeology and how it works. Have you been to university and studied this form of science? For such a statement, one would assume you have spent a great many years studying the subject yourself to come to such a conclusion. Am I right in suggesting this?

I would guess as the scientist you are you can point me in the right direction of the statements made by scientists concerning their belief they are infallable. I would very grateful if you could do this, a link or even post the evidence would be enough.

I grow tired of these so called scientists who spends years of their lives researching, testing, retesting, cross-referencing other independant scientists work. Then publishing peer reviewed evidence of their discoveries.

I find it much more constructive to believe in God, the Bible has all the evidence I need. Clearly there is evidence of the Earth being 6,000 years old and was populated by two people, you post your evidence to show all those scientific non-believers out there, we'll show 'em who's right.

Also in the bible there is no ambiguity, no incest, no rape, no slaves and certainly no discrimination of Women or homosexuals. That's why i love the BIble
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bible history.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 11:02:25