JC on a TRex wrote:
Lots of evidence wrote:What makes you think they are "planted."
The Creationists.
And Charles Dawson.
JC on a TRex wrote:
Lots of evidence wrote:What makes you think they are "planted."
The Creationists.
And Charles Dawson.
Sloetry in Motion wrote:
Science Debunked wrote:It's funny how people make light of things like this, yet can never come up with any evidence or coherent argument to the contrary.
If your grasp on reality is so tenuous that you actually believe that a 900 year old man made a boat capable of holding two of every species of animal or that humans and dinosaurs lived together then what are the chances of some random internet person being able to educate you?
At some point you become too idiotic for the effort to be worth it and the only productive thing to do is to mock you in hopes that other people see you for the horrible example that they don't want to become.
Actually, Noah was 600 years old when the Flood hit and lived 350 years afterwards.
Bible and slavery wrote:
Sloetry in Motion wrote:If your grasp on reality is so tenuous that you actually believe that a 900 year old man made a boat capable of holding two of every species of animal or that humans and dinosaurs lived together then what are the chances of some random internet person being able to educate you?
At some point you become too idiotic for the effort to be worth it and the only productive thing to do is to mock you in hopes that other people see you for the horrible example that they don't want to become.
Actually, Noah was 600 years old when the Flood hit and lived 350 years afterwards.
Is there a link to his masters records? They should be pretty good.
symbolic tales wrote:
Siskel and Ebert wrote:A true sign of the times..." I'm fairly religious...", but I only believe the parts that don't inconvenience me. Wow, I'd say you're definitely religious and at the same time probably have zero connection with God. Congratulations, you get a ribbon for participation!
Its called Catholicism smart guy.
We:
(A) Have been around awhile, you know, being the original Christian Church and all. Not Johnny come latelys.
(B) Don't interpret every word literally. Jesus routinely used symbolic stories himself (parables, for example), therefore its not not a stretch to regard things like the age of the earth, "Adam & Eve", Noah, 900 year old people, etc for what they are, which is symbolic or allegorical stories.
All except for: if the creation story as told in Genesis is not true and we were not made in the image of God but instead evolved over a period of 4.5 billion years, the whole Bible is not worth the paper it is written on and there goes your religion.
If we evolved from single celled creatures, then Adam and Eve did not sin and there is no need for Jesus Christ to come and save us from our sins. Evolution does away with the fall of mankind and thus, the need of salvation.
Just because the Catholic Church has been around for a the longest does not guarantee they have the truth. Martin Luther proved that. The Catholic Church is an amalgamation of Paganism and Christianity. Part truth and part error. The most dangerous kind.
symbolic tales wrote:
Siskel and Ebert wrote:A true sign of the times..." I'm fairly religious...", but I only believe the parts that don't inconvenience me. Wow, I'd say you're definitely religious and at the same time probably have zero connection with God. Congratulations, you get a ribbon for participation!
Its called Catholicism smart guy.
We:
(A) Have been around awhile, you know, being the original Christian Church and all. Not Johnny come latelys.
(B) Don't interpret every word literally. Jesus routinely used symbolic stories himself (parables, for example), therefore its not not a stretch to regard things like the age of the earth, "Adam & Eve", Noah, 900 year old people, etc for what they are, which is symbolic or allegorical stories.
Your Catholic church is based on an unbroken line of authority from the first disciples to now. So isn't the way the first disciples understood the stories of Jesus the key to interpreting them?Did the disciples know when Jesus was telling a symbolic story, and when he was referencing real events? Was it symbolic when he compared his own time in the grave with the time Jonah was in the fish? Do you decide how the original audience interpreted his words base on your own incredulity, or do you let the text tell you how the original audience understood the stories? If the original audience thought the parables where symbolic, but the story of Jonah (and for that matter the story of Noah) were real, then you as a Christian should do the same. An honest reading of the gospels will tell you that they certainly considered the resurrection of Jesus to be a real event, The behavior of the disciples only makes sense if they believe this really happened. And if they believed this really happened, why wouldn't they take the story of Jonah, or the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be real events as well. Granted, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are stories told in poetic parallels, so they are not told with a literary journalism style that we are accustomed to today. But this does not mean they would have been considered symbolic allegory by the Jewish people in the first century.
Jesus was "one of those guys on the corner". He just didn't make people cringe as much.
What kinds of rides does the Theme Park have? How big is their Roller Coaster? Do they have a Water Park.
bunch of water rides for the kids
nope wrong place
Im not here to explain or justify, especially in light of your slanted and loaded questions, I'm just stating the facts of how we interpret some of the colorful OT stories.
"because they believed X, they had to believe Y" is a nonstarter, son.
JesseJ wrote:
We just got back from our third trip there. Although[ ] there is still a lot of construction going on and they have a lot of work to do, it is still a great place to visit and one of the few places to learn about about the true history of mankind.
For those of you who have not visited, it is just north of Lexington - well worth the trip.
Let me add my plaudits to those of earlier posters. Quality work here, and it's obviously spawned a lengthy thread.
I was going to go with 7/10, but the volume and promptness of responses merit another point: 8/10, one of my highest ratings ever. Well played!
C. Dawson wrote:
And Charles Dawson.
And who, pray tell, is "Charles Dawson"? Some religious bigwig?
In any case: of course all of the Bible is literally true. You know, like the part that indicates pi = 3 (1 Kings 7:23).
Science Debunked wrote:
All you had to say is that you are unable to disprove anything I've stated. It would have been much easier.
Your use of the concept "disprove" is novel.
Do you have a newsletter? A facebook page maybe? Where can I find more on these hypotheses and abuse of the English language?
I am an atheist but I do believe Noah built an Ark. After all there isn't a tree big enough to make a popsicle stick boat in that sand box today.
pop_pop_v2.2.1 wrote:
Science Debunked wrote:All you had to say is that you are unable to disprove anything I've stated. It would have been much easier.
Your use of the concept "disprove" is novel.
Do you have a newsletter? A facebook page maybe? Where can I find more on these hypotheses and abuse of the English language?
Sigh. Yet another one. If it is so easy for you to disprove, do it. You know why you can't.
Discussion of Noah, his Ark, and other related material is fruitless without including the Nephilim. Gen 6:4.
Science Debunked wrote:
pop_pop_v2.2.1 wrote:Your use of the concept "disprove" is novel.
Do you have a newsletter? A facebook page maybe? Where can I find more on these hypotheses and abuse of the English language?
Sigh. Yet another one. If it is so easy for you to disprove, do it. You know why you can't.
Because you can't teach a Chimp Calculus?
Over 40% of people in the US are creationists.
15% are atheist evolutionists.
You're all just a loud minority...
Ape algebra wrote:
Science Debunked wrote:Sigh. Yet another one. If it is so easy for you to disprove, do it. You know why you can't.
Because you can't teach a Chimp Calculus?
More insults, but still no answers from "your" side.
Science Debunked wrote:
Ape algebra wrote:Because you can't teach a Chimp Calculus?
More insults, but still no answers from "your" side.
I would never insult our ancestors.