Common sense question on Noah's ark? [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : Common sense question on Noah's ark?

HorrorReporter

Nov 29th, 2008, 6:41 PM

Blu-ray

Nov 29th, 2008, 6:49 PM

HorrorReporter

Nov 29th, 2008, 7:40 PM

Unicorns. The answer is Unicorns.

believe it or not, someone I know believes they existed...

Declan

Nov 30th, 2008, 7:42 AM

Do you really care what people who believe the world is 7000 years old, have to say? I don't.

Never mind the gay thing, if you took two of every species on earth, you would need an ark the size of Texas. There are 1.4 million known species and an estimated 20 million unknown species on earth. You do the math.
________
Cannabis collective (http://dispensaries.org/)

uki

Nov 30th, 2008, 7:44 AM

yet the ark would've been big enough to hold all the genetic details of all the animals two by two... two sets of what? strands of DNA or actual animals... just tossing pebbles into the pond...

Declan

Nov 30th, 2008, 7:52 AM

Yes, it's quite possible (lol) that the man referred to as Noah was a geneticist who took DNA samples of every species on earth and after the flood went into his barn and using his state of the art genetic lab, restored over 20 million species, from DNA strands.

How do you explain the following absurdities in the bible:

GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house to rid it of mice.)

GE 6:15 The size of Noah's Ark was such that there would be about one and a half cubic feet for each pair of the 2,000,000 to 5,000,000 species to be taken aboard.

GE 7:17-19 The flood covered the entire earth at the same time. (Note: There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, but rather of many, widespread, but local floods.)

GE 7:19-20 The flood covered the earth with water fifteen cubits (twenty plus feet) above the highest mountains.(Note: This would require steady, worldwide rainfall at the rate of about 6 inches per minute, 360 inches per hour, 8640 inches per day--for 40 days and nights--so as to cover the entire earth with an endless ocean 5 miles deep, thus burying 29,000 ft. Mt. Everest under 22 ft. of water. How did the author know the depth of the water? Did Noah take soundings? And where has all this water gone?)

GE 8:20 Noah's first recorded action following the flood is to sacrifice one of every clean animal and bird. (Since so few animals were saved, this could be considered rather wasteful and defeating--especially given that the stated purpose of taking the animals aboard the Ark was to keep them alive [GE 6:20]. To see a discussion of the various ways this verse can be interpreted, and in turn the different ways to approach the Bible generally, see addendum.)

GE 8:21 The odor of Noah's sacrifices was pleasing to the Lord.

GE 9:12-16 God first creates the rainbow. (Note: Apparently the laws having to do with refraction of light were null and void prior to this time.)

GE 18:1, 7-8 God eats solid food with Abraham.

GE 30:37-43 Jacob alters the genetic characteristics of cattle by letting them view a striped rod. (Note: His purpose in doing so was to fleece Laban of his cattle.)

GE 32:24-30 God takes part in a wrestling match. He wins by injuring Jacob's hip.

GE 38:27-29 Twins are being delivered. One puts out his hand and the midwife binds it with a scarlet ribbon to identify him as the firstborn. But he draws back his hand, and his brother is born first (thereby obtaining the rights of the firstborn son).

EX 4:24 The Lord sought to kill Moses (one of his own prophets.)

EX 12:30 The Lord kills all the first-born of Egypt and there is not a house where there is not at least one dead. (This means that there was not a house in Egypt that did not include at least one first-born---a most unusual situation.)

EX 12:37, NU 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as about 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of more than 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt at a time when the whole population of Egypt was less than 2,000,000.

EX 17:14 God says that he will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek.
DT 25:19 "... you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you must not forget."
(That remembrance is now permanently preserved in the Bible.)

EX 28:34-35 Entering the holy place without wearing bells can result in death.

LE 11:20-21 There are winged creatures (birds or insects) that go around on all fours. (Note: There are no birds that go around on four legs, and all insects have six or eight legs.)

LE 11:6 (States, incorrectly, that the rabbit, or hare, chews its cud.)

LE 14:33-57 God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy.

LE 14:49-53 The cure for leprosy involves incantations and the blood of a bird.

NU 11:31-33 A "wind from the Lord" brings such an abundance of quail that "he who gathered the least gathered ten homers," or about 62 bushels. Altogether, this would have been enough to fill several thousand boxcars. Unfortunately, it was immediately followed by a great plague (food poisoning?) from the Lord.

NU 22:21-30 A donkey sees an angel, recognizes it as such, and then speaks in human language (presumably Hebrew) to his master.

DT 1:1 Moses speaks to "all" of Israel, perhaps 2,000,000 people (see EX 12:37 above).

DT 2:14 All of the "men of war"--some 600,000--who left Egypt in the Exodus were dead just thirty-eight years later. (See EX 12:37 above.)

DT 7:15 Moses promises his people that the Lord will take away all sickness.

DT 25:5-9 A man has an obligation to produce a child with his brother's widow. If he refuses, his sister-in-law is to spit in his face in front of the elders.

JS 10:12-14 God obliges Joshua by making the sun and moon stand still (so that he can finish his battle by daylight).

JG 3:21-22 (KJV) "Ehud ... took the dagger from his right thigh, and thrust it into his belly. And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and the dirt came out."

JG 7:12 The camels were without number as the sand of the sea.

JG 16:17-22 Samson loses his strength as a result of having his head shaved. (Note: This is not psychosomatic since he began to lose his strength while he was still asleep.)

JG 20:16 There were seven hundred men who were left handed and could sling a stone at a hair and not miss.

1SA 5:8-9 God causes "emerods" (hemorrhoids or tumors) amongst the Philistines (who have captured the Ark of the Covenant, where God was thought to reside).

1SA 13:5 The Philistines had "... troops like the sand on the seashore in multitude."

1SA 16:14-23 Evil spirits can come from God (and be exorcised with God's help).

1KI 3:12, 16-28 Solomon, the wisest man that ever lived, can think of no better way to determine the natural mother of a child in dispute than to threaten to divide the child in half. (Note: This does not take into account the possibility of mental derangement on the part of the natural mother.)

1KI 4:29 God gave Solomon wisdom as measureless as the sand on the seashore.

1KI 6:2, 2CH 3:3 Solomon's temple was only about ninety feet long by thirty feet wide, yet:
1KI 5:15-16 153,300 persons were employed to build it.
1KI 6:38 It took seven years to build.
1CH 22:14 ~7,500,000 lbs. of gold and ~75,000,000 lbs. of silver were used.
1CH 23:4 24,000 supervisors and 6,000 officials and judges were employed to manage it. (Note: Inasmuch as there seems to be uncertainty as to the exact weight of the biblical talent, some estimates place the weight of gold at more than 13,000,000 lbs. and the weight of silver at more than 116,000,000 lbs.)

1KI 10:24 The whole world sought an audience with Solomon to hear his wisdom.

1KI 17:2-6 The Lord commands ravens to bring bread and meat to Elijah.

1KI 18:33-38 Fire consumes wet wood, stones, and dust, and "licks up" water.

2KI 6:5-7 An iron axe head "swims" (or floats).

2CH 9:23 All the kings on earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom.

2KI 13:21 A man who is being buried comes alive after touching the bones of Elisha.

2KI 16:2, 20, 18:1-2 Ahaz was thirty-six years old when he died. His twenty-five year old son Hezekiah succeeded him. Thus Ahaz was a ten or eleven year old father.

2KI 19:35 (KJV) "...the angel of the Lord...smote...an hundred four score and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning ... they were all dead...."

2KI 20:11 The shadow on a sun dial moves backwards.

2CH 7:5, 8-9 Solomon sacrificed 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep in one week. This is 845+ animals per hour, 14+ animals per minute, for seven days straight.

2CH 21:20, 22:1-2 Ahaziah was forty-two when he became king; he succeeded his father, who died at the age of forty. Thus, Ahaziah was two years older than his father. [Note: Some translations use "twenty-two" here in an attempt to rectify this discrepancy. The Hebrew is clear, however, that 2CH 22:2 is 42. The Hebrew words involved are Strong's H705 and H8147, "forty" and "two," respectively.]

2CH 13:3 Abijah sent 400,000 men into battle against Jeroboam's 800,000 men. This is a total of 1,200,000 men, all of them Jews. (Note: Assuming one additional woman per man of fighting age, plus two persons per man [either older persons or children] would put the Jewish population of the surrounding area at a minimum of 4,800,000 persons; hardly feasible.)

2CH 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slain in a single battle. (Note: This is more than were lost in any single battle of World War II, and even exceeds the number of deaths that resulted from the dropping of the atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.)

ES 6:6, JB 19:27, PS 7:9, 16:7, 73:21, PR 23:7, 16, IS 10:7, JE 11:20, 17:10, 20:12, MT 9:4, LK 2:19, 9:47, AC 8:22, RO 10:9-10, HE 4:12, RE 2:23 (See KJV especially.) Thought occurs in the heart. The kidneys ("reins") are the seat of conscience.(Note: This is not merely a poetic use of these terms, as is now claimed. In early times, it was actually believed that various body organs other than the brain were responsible for our thoughts, feelings, actions and the like. The heart was believed to be the seat of thought processes and beliefs, while the kidneys were thought to be the seat of conscience.)

JB 9:6 (KJV) God shakes the earth out of its place and makes its pillars tremble.

JB 9:7 God can make the sun not rise and seal up the stars.

JB 28:28, PS 111:10, PR 1:7, 9:10, 15:33, IS 33:6 Fear of the Lord is equated with obtaining wisdom.

PS 58:8 Slugs and/or snails melt as they move.

PS 121:6 It is apparently possible to suffer moonstroke as well as sunstroke.

PR 19:23, 22:4 Fear of the Lord brings freedom from trouble(s). Humility and fear of the Lord bring wealth, honor, and life.

PR 20:30 Blows that wound cleanse away evil.

IS 30:26 The moon will someday be as bright as the sun now is. (Note: Until relatively recent times, the moon and the planets were thought to give off their own light.)

IS 38:8 The shadow of the Sun is made to move backwards.

IS 40:22 The earth is a circle. (Note: The earth is really a sphere, not a circle, and this verse does not imply a sphere as some believers like to infer.)

JE 20:7, EZ 14:9 Jeremiah says that the Lord deceived his own prophet. God himself says that he deceives his own prophets in order to get rid of them.

EZ 37:1-10 Dry bones come alive.

AM 8:9 The Sun will be made to set at noon in "clear day."

MT 4:8 There is a high mountain from which all the kingdoms of the world can be seen. (Note: This implies a flat earth.)

MT 4:23-24, 9:32-33, 12:22, 17:14-18, MK 1:23-26, 32-34, 5:2-16, 9:17-29, 16:9, LK 11:14, 4:33-35, 8:2, 27-36, 9:38-42, AC 8:7, 16:16-18 Both physical and mental Illness are caused by demon possession and can be cured by exorcism.

MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find. Everyone who asks, receives.

MT 13:41 Jesus will send his angels to purge his kingdom of evildoers and sin. (Note: How did evildoers get into his kingdom in the first place?)

MT 17:20, 21:21, MK 9:23, 10:27, 11:23, LK 17:6 Faith can move mountains. Nothing is impossible if you have faith [as small as] a grain of mustard seed.

MT 18:19 If two [believers] agree about anything they ask, God will do it for them.

MT 21:22, MK 11:24 Whatever you ask in prayer, if you have faith, you will receive it.

MT 24:29-30 Although the sun and the moon have been darkened and the stars have fallen from heaven, there is still enough light to see.

MT 26:52 All who take the sword will perish by it.

MT 27:52-53 The bodies of dead saints arise and go in force in the city.

MK 11:12-14, 20-21 Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season. (Note: Rather than cause the fig tree to wither and to bear fruit never again, he could have performed a miracle and made it bear fruit even out of season.)

MK 16:17-18 Those who believe are able to handle snakes and drink any deadly poison without suffering harm.

LK 1:39-42 The fetus in Elizabeth's womb jumps for joy when Elizabeth hears Mary (who is pregnant with Jesus).

LK 22:28-30 Jesus assigns each of his twelve disciples (including Judas, his betrayer) a place (or throne) in his kingdom.

JN 6:24-30 A large crowd of persons (probably several thousand) asks Jesus for a sign so that they might see and believe. This occurs immediately following the Feeding of the Multitude which should have been one of the greatest miracles and most convincing signs of all time.

JN 8:51 Jesus says: "... if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death."

JN 12:34 A crowd of persons (speaking in unison?) asks Jesus a thirty word question.

JN 16:23 Jesus says: "Whatever you ask in my name, my Father will give you."

RO 10:17-18, CN 1:23 The gospel had already been preached to every living creature even in Paul's time.

2CO 12:2 There are at least three heavens.

2CO 12:4 There are things which cannot be told--things which man cannot utter.

GA 1:8-9 An angel (from God?) who preaches a gospel contrary to that of Paul will incur Paul's wrath.

1TI 5:11 Younger widows want to marry because their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ.

1TI 6:10 The love of money is the root of all evil(s). (Note: Some translations emend the text to read, "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evils," or something similar, in an attempt to ameliorate an obvious problem. Those additional words are not there in the Greek of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts.)

TS 1:12 "One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars ...." (Figure the logic of this verse--if you can!)

HE 7:1-3 Melchizedek had no mother or father, no beginning or end.

RE 14:1-4 Heaven is to be inhabited in part by 144,000 virgin men who have not been "defiled" by women.

RE 21:16 The city of New Jerusalem (where the residents of heaven reside) is only about 1500 miles square.

GE 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven(s) and the earth." (One might ask what "existed," and where God dwelt, before he created heaven and earth. Of course, if God were pure spirit the question could be considered moot, but inasmuch as the God of the Bible allegedly participated in a wrestling match, ate solid food, was seen face to face, spoke with Moses, etc., it would seem that he possesses physical attributes, including form.)

(Note: Some biblicists contend that biblical chronology fixes the date of creation at 4004 B.C. thereby making the earth about six thousand years old. Some present-day creationists stubbornly adhere to a young earth timetable in spite of overwhelming evidence that the earth is actually billions of years old.)

GE 1:3-5, 14-19 There was light ("night and day") before there was a sun. (Note: If there were no sun, there would be no night or day. Also, light from the newly created heavenly bodies seems to have reached the earth instantaneously though it now takes thousands or millions of years.)

GE 1:12, 16 Plants began to grow before there was sunlight.

GE 1:29 Every plant and tree which yield seed are given to us by God as good to eat. (Note: This would include poisonous plants such as hemlock, buckeye pod, nightshade, oleander.)

GE 2:15-23, 3:1-5, 1TI 2:14 Eve was created after Adam had already been given the prohibition about eating the forbidden fruit. Eve believed the serpent (the craftiest of all of God's wild creatures) when he assured her that she would become wise and would not die if she ate the fruit. Eve has been blamed for causing Adam to fall, and ultimately for the fall of mankind. (Note: Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would have had no knowledge of right and wrong; they would not have known that it was a sin to disobey God or to obey the serpent. After they ate the forbidden fruit, God placed a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life" to keep them from eating its fruit. He could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" before Adam and Eve disobeyed. In addition, even though the prohibition regarding the forbidden fruit was made to Adam before Eve came on the scene, Eve has been blamed for the Fall; 1TI 2:14 says: "... Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.")

GE 3:1-5 The serpent speaks human language (presumably Hebrew).

GE 3:14-16 God curses the serpent, Eve, and Adam for what they have done. (Note: This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.)

GE 3:14 The serpent eats dust for the rest of his life (by command of God).

GE 4:15 A mark is placed on Cain as a distinctive identifying symbol when there were only three (known) persons on earth.

GE 4:17 Cain builds and populates a whole city in only two generations.

GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)
________
CHANG'AN FORD HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Chang'an_Ford)

proffett

Nov 30th, 2008, 8:16 AM

No really, copy and paste the whole Bible...

Stop taking the word literally and it begins to come together...

Declan

Nov 30th, 2008, 11:41 AM

No really, copy and paste the whole Bible...

Stop taking the word literally and it begins to come together...

Touched a nerve or something? The bible was and is nothing more than a form of mind control over uneducated, low IQ sheeple. It might provide some inspiration to some, but so can a real estate brochure if you get it at the right time. It's all a matter of what you've convinced yourself you're going to see in it.

True spirituality has never come from men. It is found in the Universe around us by those who can see.

Free yourself! Throw away the chains of religion!
________
Ass Asian (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/142/asian/videos/1)

proffett

Nov 30th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Declan, I couldn't agree with you more. I am simply saying that while you laugh at the scripture I look for truth. Within every piece of fiction lie some facts. Although hidden from the speeping masses (afterall you cannot look with your eyes closed tightly) there is wisdom in metaphor and allegory.

True spirituality has never come from men. It is found in the Universe around us by those who can see.

Enlightenment comes from within.

uki

Nov 30th, 2008, 12:43 PM

Enlightenment comes from within.the base teachings of jesus...

UVsaturated

Nov 30th, 2008, 2:27 PM

I am being a little sarcastic, but based on the fact that i completely don't believe Noah's ark is true (unless it of course was a spaceship from Mars)

Yes, because we all know how much evidence there is for spaceships from Mars.

lycanox

Nov 30th, 2008, 2:32 PM

Or evidence for an extreme genetic bottleneck among all species.
Evidence for a world wide flood. Or any other evidence that the story even happened.

Nu Kua

Nov 30th, 2008, 2:45 PM

Declan- excellent re-telling of the biblical version of events. Rep for that as soon as my 24 hours are up.
LOL

Yes, it's quite possible (lol) that the man referred to as Noah was a geneticist who took DNA samples of every species on earth and after the flood went into his barn and using his state of the art genetic lab, restored over 20 million species, from DNA strands.

Quite close to the some interpretations of the original, unedited story, except that Noah/Ziusudra wasn't the scientist. His father, half-brother, and aunt were.
:bounce:

uki

Nov 30th, 2008, 2:48 PM

Or evidence for an extreme genetic bottleneck among all species.
Evidence for a world wide flood. Or any other evidence that the story even happened.oh how i would love to hang out and eat a few hits of acid with you...

Serion

Dec 6th, 2008, 9:45 PM

I would also challenge you to Google the prophet Nuh in the Qur'an. Similar to the Bible, he was to build a vessel to weather a flood, and "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, and your family." The story of Noah is not unique to the Bible.

Cartesiantheater

Dec 9th, 2008, 12:06 PM

yet the ark would've been big enough to hold all the genetic details of all the animals two by two... two sets of what? strands of DNA or actual animals... just tossing pebbles into the pond...

Yes, it's quite possible (lol) that the man referred to as Noah was a geneticist who took DNA samples of every species on earth and after the flood went into his barn and using his state of the art genetic lab, restored over 20 million species, from DNA strands.

[...]

OOOOooooo now this is fun! How about this:

The story of the flood was written by men. It is flawed and full of errors. But it was BASED upon a few prehistoric humans who actually ventured from another PLANET to Earth in a spaceship called "The Ark" with the DNA of most life from the mother planet (enough variety to spawn a vibrant ecosystem). How about, say, Mars?

:D

I'm sure a few Realiens will get a kick out of that.

:abduct:

UVsaturated

Dec 9th, 2008, 12:44 PM

No really, copy and paste the whole Bible...

Stop taking the word literally and it begins to come together...

OMG...hilarious. I was thinking the same thing; that someone should just copy and past the whole Bible sometime so it will never need to be done again.

proffett

Dec 9th, 2008, 1:01 PM

OMG...hilarious. I was thinking the same thing; that someone should just copy and past the whole Bible sometime so it will never need to be done again.

HAHA, no kidding.

HorrorReporter

Dec 11th, 2008, 7:51 PM

I spoke to the person today that believes in unicorns... She also thinks we cohabitated with dinosaurs and that God purposely put old fossils on earth to confuse us to test our faith.

WHAT!?

Blu-ray

Dec 11th, 2008, 8:12 PM

I spoke to the person today that believes in unicorns... She also thinks we cohabitated with dinosaurs and that God purposely put old fossils on earth to confuse us to test our faith.

WHAT!?

Wow... Nothing like some good old fashioned brainwashing...

REALLY?!

proffett

Dec 11th, 2008, 9:48 PM

OOOOooooo now this is fun! How about this:

The story of the flood was written by men. It is flawed and full of errors. But it was BASED upon a few prehistoric humans who actually ventured from another PLANET to Earth in a spaceship called "The Ark" with the DNA of most life from the mother planet (enough variety to spawn a vibrant ecosystem). How about, say, Mars?

:D

I'm sure a few Realiens will get a kick out of that.

:abduct:

I'll see your Mars theory and I will raise you the (for now) undiscovered planet Nibiru and the Anunnaki.

While we are playing a game here, I will call. The flood indeed happened and was global, more plausible if Pangaea was around as well. All specimens of life were kept via their DNA and when the water receeded the planet was once again repopulated. Bare in mind that this was over many, many hundreds of thousands of years... But time isn't too relevent here.

lilalove16

Dec 11th, 2008, 11:07 PM

We'll NEVER know.

I think we should leave it alone lol

proffett

Dec 11th, 2008, 11:12 PM

We'll NEVER know.

I think we should leave it alone lol

Aww... Now that's no fun!

Does that mean you fold? lol

lilalove16

Dec 11th, 2008, 11:19 PM

Aww... Now that's no fun!

Does that mean you fold? lol

i dont fold but noahs ark says that there was a flood
and every animal in the world isnt in one area
so i think that the bible was talking about a flood in one area .. thats my opinion

uki

Dec 12th, 2008, 6:37 AM

i dont fold but noahs ark says that there was a flood
and every animal in the world isnt in one area
so i think that the bible was talking about a flood in one area .. thats my opinionif i remember correctly, noah built the ark over the course of 100 years or so... that is plenty of time to gather animals from around the globe, or their DNA anyway... there is plenty of evidence of a planetary flood, considering it is in virtually every cultural tradition across the globe, from the aborigines(spelling?) to the inca people of the andes... there is a reason they built those cities so fucking high up in the mountains, just like there is a reason that the first agricultural remains from the middle east were in the mountains... spelt is an example of a genetically altered grain that was grown in the harsh landscape of the elevations... you'd think that within the fertile crescent, humans would cultivate in the lowlands and flat terrain, but evidently they couldn't at the time or they would've done it... here in pennsylvania, you can walk around on the tops of the appalachian mountains and find fossilized seashells and other oceanic sediments... at 2000' above sea level.

lilalove16

Dec 13th, 2008, 5:05 PM

if i remember correctly, noah built the ark over the course of 100 years or so... that is plenty of time to gather animals from around the globe, or their DNA anyway... there is plenty of evidence of a planetary flood, considering it is in virtually every cultural tradition across the globe, from the aborigines(spelling?) to the inca people of the andes... there is a reason they built those cities so fucking high up in the mountains, just like there is a reason that the first agricultural remains from the middle east were in the mountains... spelt is an example of a genetically altered grain that was grown in the harsh landscape of the elevations... you'd think that within the fertile crescent, humans would cultivate in the lowlands and flat terrain, but evidently they couldn't at the time or they would've done it... here in pennsylvania, you can walk around on the tops of the appalachian mountains and find fossilized seashells and other oceanic sediments... at 2000' above sea level.

I dont know its just what I think I mean know one really knows

Archangel777

Jan 1st, 2009, 9:31 PM

1.) Animals can never be "gay" if a male humps another male its because they don't know any better. They don't have our knowledge. They will still hump a female no matter what.

2.) Two of each "Species" not type. For instance, all felines are the same species, from that base form, they can "adapt" over generations, to any environment. As someone said before, they could have even been stored in DNA vials, then cloned later.

"Evolution" takes millions of years, whereas "adaptation" only takes a certain number of generations through breeding into an environment.

So you could say:

2 Felines (Which could later become tigers, lions, housecats, etc...)
2 Canines (Which could later become Wolves, small dogs, medium sized dogs.)
2 Bears (Which could later become Polar Bears, Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, etc..)
2 Horses (Which could later become Zebras, Miniature Horses, Ponies, etc...)

What I'm getting at is that even though a Tiger and a housecat are different looking in appearance, they are still the same species, they both purr, and are similar in every single way aside from size and colour (Just like how there are big black guys, and small asians) That might even be why it says in Genesis, "God made each creature after their kind"

Just some food for thought.

Freddy

Jan 1st, 2009, 10:40 PM

I'll see your Mars theory and I will raise you the (for now) undiscovered planet Nibiru and the Anunnaki.

While we are playing a game here, I will call. The flood indeed happened and was global, more plausible if Pangaea was around as well. All specimens of life were kept via their DNA and when the water receeded the planet was once again repopulated. Bare in mind that this was over many, many hundreds of thousands of years... But time isn't too relevent here.
And your evidence for this is? And did you know that the Bible flood account is a copy of the earlier flood story from The Epic of Gilgamesh as it is also the source for the flood story in the Koran?

Traveler

Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:26 AM

Your copy and post is too long to plough through so I will take the first and last

Yes, it's quite possible (lol) that the man referred to as Noah was a geneticist who took DNA samples of every species on earth and after the flood went into his barn and using his state of the art genetic lab, restored over 20 million species, from DNA strands.

How do you explain the following absurdities in the bible:

GE 6:5 God is unhappy with the wickedness of man and decides to flood the earth to eliminate mankind. All living things including plants, animals, women and innocent children are also exterminated. (Note: This is like burning down a house to rid it of mice.)

The account stipulates that all flesh became corrupted and then turned to violance. The only way that all flesh can become corrupted is if something got loose out the lab and spread like wildfire through the natural biosphere..

Keep in mind that to even build an ark that size you need a cirtain amount of technological industrilization.

GE 6:4 There were giants on the earth at one time. (Note: No evidence exists to supports this assertion.)

If there were giants then they should have left some form of trace. How is this

http://www.officialdisclosure.com/discovery.htm

Archangel777

Jan 2nd, 2009, 1:32 AM

Traveler

Jan 2nd, 2009, 3:24 AM

The politics behind the promotion of evolution has rendered any real science useless. Of course the students will denie this but the control and distribution of information relating to finds tell another story.

We are all going to have to just live with the interlocutoril hypocrites for a long time to come and thats all there is to it.

Freddy

Jan 2nd, 2009, 8:10 PM

This is real:
http://members.toast.net/rjspina/images/GiantHumanLeg2.jpg
Among many other giant skeletons and skulls that have been found in the past. They just disregard most of it since it doesn't match up to the evolutionary theories. Also, note the fact that this was found in the "Euphrates" river valley.
Maybe you should have checked out the Mt. Blanco Museum's website. You would have found out the femur was sculpted. Get it. It is a fake! It even says that it was sculpted in the caption you posted.

"From Joe Taylor

Mr. Jack Wagner sent me the following article in 1996 and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East. As a guide for this model, I used the femur of one of the Malachite Man females. "

http://mtblanco.com/TourGiantArticle.htm

Traveler

Jan 4th, 2009, 6:46 AM

Cartesiantheater

Jan 5th, 2009, 2:38 PM

J. Cruise

Jan 5th, 2009, 4:06 PM

:sigh: creationists will never give up their verified hoaxes. We've already gone over most of it here. Doesn't matter, since there are several more pressing questions about Noah's Ark.

How the hell did Noah fit the animals in the arc?

How did the Koalas make it to Australia? (http://forums.armageddononline.org/showpost.php?p=93612&postcount=10)
^^ old AO forum that needs to be bumped.

Why are there no fossils of flowers lower than what geologists interpret to be the after the first 2 billion years of the geological record? (http://forums.armageddononline.org/flowers_flood_and-t6092.html?t=6092&highlight=sharks)

^^ the IDiots and creationists didn't touch that thread. Now you get to redeem yourself.

Apparently, after the sharks ate the last of the gorillas, giraffes, dinosaurs and tigers that drowned, they were forced to consume flowers in order to survive. Not very tasty, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Hence, no flowers near the bottom of the sediment.

Sure, that is satirical, but it makes as much sense as the pathetic bullshit creationists try to pass off as explanations.

In other words, in order to believe the flood story and Genesis account literally in every detail, you have to be either STUPID, willfully ignorant, or willing to toss out every piece of evidence that disagrees with what you believe regardless of it's clear validity, whilst making up embarrassingly ridiculous bullshit explanations that couldn't fool a grade school kid who wasn't brainwashed from birth .

As far as "real" science goes, with "real" science you start with the evidence and then find the answer. Creationism starts with the (wrong) answer and then tries (pitifully) to find the evidence to support it. Evolution originally arose from evidence first considerations. It is modified on a yearly basis due to evidence first considerations. It has been observed in labs, and then modified accordingly. Evolution is MUCH deeper than any of you creationists want to consider. There are two reasons: either 1.) You aren't smart enough or motivated enough to, or 2.) You've found that the further you explore it the more the evidence seems to support it, and so you reject it a priori and claim that it isn't "real" science in order to preserve your inaccurate beliefs.

If you aren't completely willing to sacrifice and LEAVE your faith if the evidence dictates that you should in a freaking instant (and NONE of you Christians are), then you need to leave science the hell alone and stick to going to church.

I must say that this was very well put! I really don't think I could have said it any better myself! And I'm an arrogant prick so that's saying a lot!! ::p: I don't see how anyone with half a brain can believe any part of the bible as a literal truth, it's a bunch of stories written by men about the oldest whore in the world, rather than get beaten or stoned to death for having an affair she claimed that "god" impregnated her.... seriosuly? If you believe that I have a bridge for sale!!!
And as far as the whole Noah thing goes, that's just down right stupid period! So let me guess that "dog whisperer" guy is Noah reincarnated right? I mean seriously, you expect me to believe that Noah could get predators and prey on the same vessel and make them play nice? Umm no thanks, and the flood? Seriously for a reality check, it's already been proven that the mediterranean sea was not always there and that it has dried up and filled back up several times.... there's your flood.... right area, we know it happened, just not on a global scale. Which like everything else in the bible fits, because everything in the bible is an exaggeration. All in all he prolly saved his sheep and his dog lol... get a clue people... open your eyes and stop acting like lemmings!!!

J. Cruise

Jan 5th, 2009, 4:26 PM

here in pennsylvania, you can walk around on the tops of the appalachian mountains and find fossilized seashells and other oceanic sediments... at 2000' above sea level.

Ok you do realize that every mountain in the world started at the ocean floor right? plate tectonics and all that? Pangea? Not to mention volcanoes? Just saying there is a much more acceptable reason for sea shell fossils 2000' above sea level, as for the numerous accounts of floods in cultures all over the globe... welcome to the world, it's funny, we have floods in this day and age and no one seems to think anything of them? oh it's just a flood, in certain places it happens at least once a year! There is just not any (credible) evidence to support a "global flood" nor Noah and his ark. That's just my :0.02:

Freddy

Jan 5th, 2009, 8:08 PM

And your point is?

"and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East."

The size is what they were after. The real one you keep in the lab for study while you put the manufactured one that you don't mind getting wrecked by the visitors on public display.
My point is you need real evidence.

A fake bone is a fake bone.

If there is a real bone produce it in order for the scientific community to examine it. You do know about peer review?

Until then you have nothing but a fake bone.

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 5th, 2009, 8:39 PM

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2009, 4:44 AM

Ok you do realize that every mountain in the world started at the ocean floor right? plate tectonics and all that? Pangea? Not to mention volcanoes?

You do realize that this statement does in fact confirm the Genesis account.

This planet should be a water planet with a rocky mantel ( specific gravity) which is what the Biblical account says it originally was. God made the claim that he was the one responsible for dredging up the solid matter so as to form the original land mass.

A logical deduction is that the continental drift is nothing more than the original land mass very gradually sinking back into the water where it originally came from.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2009, 4:49 AM

How did all the fish survive, for that matter? I mean, some require freshwater and some saltwater and it doesn't make much to seriously mess up their habitats? So, did Noah also build some giant aquariums or what?

That statement points to a young earth, not an old one. Or do you think that just because the oceans hold a high concentration of salt now it has always been that way.

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2009, 4:56 AM

My point is you need real evidence.

A fake bone is a fake bone.

If there is a real bone produce it in order for the scientific community to examine it. You do know about peer review?

Until then you have nothing but a fake bone.

What part of this statement can you not grasp?

"and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East."

Is the one found in the middle east not the real thing. Is it not in the hands of the scientific community?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 6th, 2009, 5:33 AM

Is the one found in the middle east not the real thing. Is it not in the hands of the scientific community?No, it is NOT. It doesnt exist. If it did exist there would be more evidence for it than a sentence that refers to "some bone, somewhere"....

Traveler

Jan 6th, 2009, 6:33 AM

No, it is NOT. It doesnt exist. If it did exist there would be more evidence for it than a sentence that refers to "some bone, somewhere"....

You have no evidence to back up that statement other than the presumed assumption that you cannot find a reference to it at your university.

Well of course you are not going to find a reference to anything that contradicts the chosen curriculum . Giants stuff up the evolution theory as do human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints etc,etc,etc. No way are your professors going to let you see information like that!

DontBeAfraid

Jan 6th, 2009, 9:18 AM

Well of course you are not going to find a reference to anything that contradicts the chosen curriculum . Giants stuff up the evolution theory as do human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints etc,etc,etc. No way are your professors going to let you see information like that!The people who MADE those fake prints have admitted it traveler. Just like the person who MADE that FAKE bone.

Blu-ray

Jan 6th, 2009, 9:40 AM

You have no evidence to back up that statement other than the presumed assumption that you cannot find a reference to it at your university.

Well of course you are not going to find a reference to anything that contradicts the chosen curriculum . Giants stuff up the evolution theory as do human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints etc,etc,etc. No way are your professors going to let you see information like that!

Alleged "human" footprints

Outside Dinosaur Valley State Park, in the limestone deposits along the Paluxy River, "twin sets" of tracks were found. Originally discovered in the 1930s, starting in the 1960s and 1970s creationists alleged that one set of tracks were human (the "Glen Rose Man") and the other dinosaur to support their beliefs of flaws in evolutionary theory.[1] However, as biologist Massimo Pigliucci noted, geologists in the 1980s "clearly demonstrated that no human being left those prints," but rather "they were in fact metatarsal dinosaur tracks, together with a few pure and simple fakes."[2] The family of George Adams, the man who originally made the claims, later admitted it was a hoax.[3] "My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family who found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks.[3] She explained that in the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by making moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils.[3] The fossils were bought for $15 to $30 and when the supply ran low, George Adams, Zana's grandfather "just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glen_Rose_Formation

J. Cruise

Jan 6th, 2009, 10:49 AM

You do realize that this statement does in fact confirm the Genesis account.

This planet should be a water planet with a rocky mantel ( specific gravity) which is what the Biblical account says it originally was. God made the claim that he was the one responsible for dredging up the solid matter so as to form the original land mass.

A logical deduction is that the continental drift is nothing more than the original land mass very gradually sinking back into the water where it originally came from.

Ok first off, it doesn't prove genesis in any way shape or form nor the great flood if it originated as a water planet lol unless you're trying to say that god created man and man flurished for what was it 10 generations over 1,100 years or some bs like that? And then decided to get rid of the land mass again? lol genesis was written by men not "god" and the sooner you literalist dumbasses realize that the better!

"god" didn't make any claim, the men who wrote the books did! To make their "god" seem more powerfull and to use that power to create a fear of not believing in their "god" plain and simple, and while jews and muslims share a similar belief of "god" and have all the prophet's and what not, only you xians have the belief that jesus was the son of "god".

Now I will say this, the original xians were smarter than your average bear because they took the story of "god" and said... "how can we make our version of this "god" character stand out above the others to make people believe in it more than the others?" and the answer is this... "By Jahova I've got it! We'll say that Jesus is the direct SON of god, and that his birth unlike all the others who came before him and did "god like" things...<cough cough> Zoroaster...<cough cough> Osiris <cough cough>...was announced by angels!... yes that should do it!" However, if you believe that story about "god" impregnating Mary, then he broke one of his own commandments, I do believe it was the one about coveting thy neighbors wife? But is it ok because it's "god"? Then he would be a hypocrite, and I deffinitely wouldn't follow a hypocrite! That whole do as I say not as I do BS doesn't fly with me! lol

Then they had to find a crazy guy who's (soon to be) wife had cheated on him and gotten pregnant so they could pass the whole thing off as "real" see, xians have been a hoax since the begining! lol... you guys crack me up!

On a more serious note, before you go trying to use "logic" in refference to anything in the bible: stop.... think about it... then don't even try because you'll get torn apart like a sheep thrown to hungry wolves! Continental drift is not "the original land mass very gradually sinking back into the water where it originally came from" lol for your obvious lack of mental capacity to understand science I will dumb this down for you... you take a puzzle out of the box and put it together... oh how pretty is that? it's the vatican! lol... and then you start taking it apart in big chunks... you're not putting them back in the box you're just moving them apart on the flat table you put them together on.... do you get the point? But if you truly believe that "god" is responsible for continental drift then you also must feel that earthqaukes are just "god" doing some landscaping right? I mean that makes perfect sense! lol... I better stop before I start to get mean..... just think before you speak is all I'm saying.

J. Cruise

Jan 6th, 2009, 10:55 AM

LOL this was too funy not to share!

http://closetofmysteries.blogspot.com/2006/04/giant-human-femur-found-in-turkey.html

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 6th, 2009, 4:30 PM

That statement points to a young earth, not an old one. Or do you think that just because the oceans hold a high concentration of salt now it has always been that way.

Maybe you didn't understand my question? I am asking how, if you accept Noah and the young earth and all that stuff as literal fact, the fish survived?

As for Traveler's contention that there is some conspiracy going on in universities to suppress evidence: Methinks you don't understand how science works. Science works by collecting evidence, proposing a hypothesis and then testing it against that evidence over and over until someone can come up with a theory that explains all of the evidence and hypotheses. If even ON person could find evidence that credibly denied Darwin's theory of evolution, they would become famous. That's how scientists earn a reputation--by finding new data and submitting new hypotheses.

Many scientists have tried over the last 150 years to disprove evolution (just as Einstein's theories disproved/refined Newtonian physics) but no one has been able to significantly impact it (there have been some modifications to the theory over the years, which is exactly as it should be when new evidence is found). The evidence is so overwhelming and comes from so many different disciplines of science that saying evolution did not take place is tantamount to saying that Pluto doesn't exist or that there is no Milky Way (BTW, there is more evidence for evolution then for either of those two astronomical phenomena). It is just too well-documented at this point.

I really think that its important to take the Bible glasses off and study evolution (NOT study what creationism has to say about evolution--there's a big difference). Many xians have managed to retain their faith while still accepting the fact of evolution. The literal 7-day creation is not necessary to belief so I don't see why xians hold onto it so ardently and accept the silliness of creationism/ID. I really think that its because they have swallowed the propaganda of the ID crowd and do not understand the actual science behind evolution.

J. Cruise

Jan 6th, 2009, 4:50 PM

Maybe you didn't understand my question? I am asking how, if you accept Noah and the young earth and all that stuff as literal fact, the fish survived?

Traveler did the typical xian thing there, deflect and throw in some "facts" from one of the bibles stories lol.... they try to mistify you with delusions of grandure rather than use real evidence lol... You won't get a real answer from any of them! lol..... the truth of the matter is that the fish couldn't survive, unless you believe in evolution on an extremely rapid scale lol... and altho some species of shark have been known to swim up rivers it doesn't mean that all fish can, sharks have been around for millions of years so there is probably very little they can't adapt to. Point being that it would have killed all the fresh water fishies because they cannot adapt to salt water which is what at least 90% of the water from the flood would have been.

Freddy

Jan 6th, 2009, 7:58 PM

What part of this statement can you not grasp?

"and asked me to sculpt a human femur the size of the one found in the Middle East."

Is the one found in the middle east not the real thing. Is it not in the hands of the scientific community?
You have no evidence! That's right you do not believe in science. You have your Bible.

one14am

Jan 7th, 2009, 12:02 AM

Uki says. "if i remember correctly, noah built the ark over the course of 100 years or so... that is plenty of time to gather animals from around the globe, or their DNA anyway... "

Perhaps Noah was a corporation, with an acronym. Never Organize Against Humanity.

Traveler

Jan 7th, 2009, 5:25 AM

And the fan mail just pours in.

Did I strike a nerve.

J. Cruise

Jan 7th, 2009, 12:05 PM

No Traveler, you didn't strike a nerve, we just like to bask in your utter stupidity! lol... If anything you only re-opened the can of worms for yourself, seeing as no xian as ever produced any "real" evidence of any kind, so now all that's left to do is mock your pathetic attempt at proving your "faith" is more realistic and acceptable than cold hard facts. Faith in a "god" written about in a book that was written by MEN... not "god" himself lol... The truth is, I pitty you and you're need to feel part of something greater than you actually are.

Traveler

Jan 8th, 2009, 5:58 AM

MapMan

Jan 8th, 2009, 6:58 AM

I don't believe that there was a biblical flood or that Noah built a boat and put all the animals in it! Something on that scale would leave some sort of evidence.

I'm not sure any rational person would disagree.

It begs the question why it is in the Old Testament though. Perhaps long ago they used to explain the bible stories when they were reciting them (I'm talking about before things were written down). Perhaps it's just a story they used to use to illustrate a point. If you put your metaphor cap on you could use the story to explain to people using imagery something along the lines of:

There was once great evil in the world committed by the people who didn't follow Judaism.
There were a group of people who God selected to save (The Jews).
God appointed a man to save these people from the other, more evil people.
This man and his followers followed the Jewish way of life.
[The concept of sea and oceans being where evil resides is repeated throughout Jewish theology].
The Jews were given charge of the animals (echos back to the creation story where man is given charge of the animals) and saved them from the evil (look at various Kashrut laws)
God allowed the evil non Jews to be overcome by their own evil that he had set the Jews apart from.
By following the man that God appointed the Jews were saved from evil.

I'm probably totally wrong but if there are any Rabbis about manybe they could help?

I firmly believe that in the days before the enlightenment, people used to use stories to illustrate points they were trying to make. Of course, nowadays we just say what we mean and about 25% understand it, 25% don't understand it and 50% don't listen!

Call it mind control or whatever - isn't everything we see and here mind control??!

Traveler

Jan 8th, 2009, 7:39 AM

Well here is another link to get you all raging again.

The land of giants destroyed by floods and ice

http://www.officialdisclosure.com/giants.htm

J. Cruise

Jan 8th, 2009, 10:33 AM

The cold hard facts are that Science does not have a viable explanation as to why matter even exists in this universe in the first place.

There just simply is no source of energy available to form even the first atom in the vacuum of nothingness that was later to provide the space that our universe now occupies.

So what you're saying is that since we haven't figured EVERYTHING out yet that you'd rather believe in some fairytale that was pretty much borrowed from all the major civilizations?? Riiiight... next thing you're gonna tell me is that you believe in the tooth fairy too! lol xians really make me laugh.

J. Cruise

Jan 8th, 2009, 11:14 AM

Ok traveler, so if the Inca (which have been around for thousands of years before xianity) believe it was their "god" that created the "giants" and the Maya and Olmec believe their "god" created them and you believe your "god" created it, who's to say which one is right? Of course you believe your's is the only true "god" but they believe in their "god" just as much as you believe in yours, do you think that just because you have a book filled with a bunch of stories about "god's work" and his "son" that you are correct? Cuz last I checked, the jews and the muslims both have books too! So what makes you right and everyone else wrong? Please... enlighten me! lol

On a personal note, I would believe that flying gorilla's or alien's built those geogplyphs before a race of giants created from the "watchers" and daughters of men lol

DontBeAfraid

Jan 8th, 2009, 3:44 PM

There just simply is no source of energy available to form even the first atom in the vacuum of nothingness that was later to provide the space that our universe now occupiesOMG! You know precisely DICK about the big bang theory! Here is a hint, Space/Time is what expanded into existence! Not just matter.

J. Cruise

Jan 8th, 2009, 4:00 PM

Now now now DBA you have to realize that we're dealing with brainwashed sheeple here and that they might not be able to wrap their little minds around the real facts of the big bang theory because their pastor already told them all the wrong information about it to make sure their "faith" doesn't get questioned... they're not getting the "blood of christ" in those little cups... it's the brainwashing kool-aid! lol

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 8th, 2009, 4:16 PM

Traveller,
And alternate but more believable explanation of the ruins around Lake Titicaca would be that regular old humans made them. There are many such monoliths around the world that were made by human hands, like the Pyramids and Stonehenge, not to mention many Aztec and Mayan monuments. There is absolutely no reason to believe that "giants" had anything to do with it, anymore than I should believe that unicorns were used to pull the sledges that moved the stones.

The structures themselves are not evidence of the existence of half man/half angels. Such evidence would be: bones, bodies, inactive DNA in some races, ect.

Traveler

Jan 9th, 2009, 8:13 AM

I think you may all like this one

http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/news/images/main/3sakd.jpg

Traveler

Jan 9th, 2009, 8:19 AM

OMG! You know precisely DICK about the big bang theory! Here is a hint, Space/Time is what expanded into existence! Not just matter.

Bubbles within bubbles? Sure, why not.

I'm sure it will all be revised next year for the next exciting episode of why it won't work .

DontBeAfraid

Jan 9th, 2009, 9:52 AM

I think you may all like this oneSkeletons in the foreground and people digging in the distant background? What has that to do with anything traveler?

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 10:27 AM

Wow... I know how to play with photoshop too!!!! lol you xians and your hoax's.... lol never cease to amaze me!

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 10:37 AM

Oh and anyone who knows anything about archaeology knows that if the bones were that uncovered they wouldn't have laborers using pick-axe's they would have the actual scientists gently unearthing the bones in the interest of preserving as much of them as possible... not to mention the fact that if these "giants" are in fact as old as it's said they are then there would not be that much loose sand on them... it is clearly a staged photo. Nice try tho Traveler.... keep drinking the kool-aid! lol

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 10:48 AM

Cartesiantheater

Jan 9th, 2009, 10:58 AM

Bubbles within bubbles? Sure, why not.

I'm sure it will all be revised next year for the next exciting episode of why it won't work .

Actually it works ridiculously well. That is why it is the currently accepted theory. Yes, there are a couple problems, but there is also a great deal of explanatory power with the current model. Not to mention that the current model is an extrapolation of theory that works every day in experiment and in the technology you use.

And as for matter coming from nothing, look up quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). Very rare apparent violations of energy conservation are permitted for very very very tiny lengths of time in quantum mechanics.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting to find an "Intelligent christian"!!!

J. Cruise, I found you an intelligent Christian:

(skip the intro and prayer)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 11:00 AM

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/8/8/mermaid1.2.jpg
OOOHHH... now I believe in mermaids too! lol

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/h/7/sundarbans_sm.jpg
I think the ghost should have chosen a more profile type pose don't you?

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/C/3/badday.jpg
And now flying sharks in San Fancisco Bay??? What is the world coming to? lol

See I can do it too!!!!

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 2:36 PM

Cartesian, thanks but I'm at work right now so youtube won't come up... however i found the Chupacabra!!!! lol

http://www.popularemails.com/images/catbathes/catbaths6.jpg

Cartesiantheater

Jan 9th, 2009, 4:32 PM

It's Dr. Kennith Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller), author of "Finding Darwin's God." He is the one who helped hand the creationists their ass in the Dover trials. He especially handled Behe and friends, and during his cross examination at the stand they had nothing to say about the scientific details he presented (he says in the vid he was disappointed, because he was quite prepared).

Informative video for both scientific content and for exposing the deceptive methods of creationists. The IDiots were utterly shut down- and what is worse is that the judge was a conservative one!

Miller is important because he is a Christian, but one of the most vocal proponents of evolution in particular, and science in general. I put him on the same level as Richard Dawkins in terms of laymen writing ability and in terms of importance to the public education of science. In fact, while Dawkins can be detrimental to that cause at times, Miller, being a Christian, is much harder to just write off as an evil activist. He is witty, knows his stuff, uncompromising on the observable facts, but quite willing to accept faith as it is. He is very active in persevering the integrity of pubic science education, and very important to it.

J. Cruise

Jan 9th, 2009, 7:13 PM

Dammit!!! Now I'm gonna have to come up with a new sig!!! GRRRRRRR!!! lol... the rest of them are still IDiots lol

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 9th, 2009, 7:53 PM

I recently wrote a paper about ID and talked a lot about the Dover trial. Judge Jones' ruling is a must-read...very insightful and funny.

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf

Chris Nel

Jan 9th, 2009, 11:55 PM

The FLOOD was GLOBAL because the RAQIA enveloped the entire Planet Earth.
GAY SEXUALITY is not GENETIC it is an unclean spirit possessed by the 'gay' person.
Angels from heaven gathered pairs of animals on devine instruction.
Antedilucian animals which was genetically engineered by THE EVIL ONE, was not on board the ARK and was destroyed by the FLOOD; that was the whole purpose of the exercise: The 'sons' of the 'elohim' (the supernatural beings) took from the beautiful daughters of ADAM whom they liked and raped them and the children were the NEPHIL. 'Giants' and they were all destroyed durig the FLOOD but they did the same heinious crime after the flood and that is why CANAAN is cursed and from NIMROD came the mixing of seed with animals and the resultant APE-MEN: homo sapiens.

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 10th, 2009, 1:08 AM

Ummmm...okay Chris_Nel.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 10th, 2009, 1:19 AM

Traveler

Jan 10th, 2009, 7:47 AM

oooohhh look what I found on a google search! It must be true... praise jesus and thank the lord I have been SAVED!!!! Thank you google so much for opening my eyes!! lol seriously traveler... if this is real then the giants in your picture must have been babies! lol

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/f/1/Aad4_sm.jpg

First off you have just issued a blanket statement that this photo is not real. You have no evidence for that, you do not know who took the photo. You do not know if it has been shopped or if it is real. You do not know where it was taken or by whom and under what circumstances.

But you have demonstrated a behaveral trait that I have pointed out all along. If the information does not line up with the preferred scientific theory then it has to be fake. And you learned morons have the gall to say that the religious folk are all brain washed for them to believe in a God.

Well here is some more and I am sure you will have a lot of time to ridicule this as all fake as well because your small little world cannot handle it.

In a surprisingly under-reported story from 2007, Mark Holley, a professor of underwater archaeology at North-western Michigan University College, discovered a series of stones – some of them arranged in a circle and one of which seemed to show carvings of a mastodon – 40-feet beneath the surface waters of Lake Michigan.
If verified, the carvings could be as much as 10,000 years old – coincident with the post-Ice Age presence of both humans and mastodons in the upper Midwest.

http://bldgblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/stonehenge-beneath-waters-of-lake.html

DontBeAfraid

Jan 10th, 2009, 4:15 PM

In a surprisingly under-reported story from 2007, Mark Holley, a professor of underwater archaeology at North-western Michigan University College, discovered a series of stones – some of them arranged in a circle and one of which seemed to show carvings of a mastodon – 40-feet beneath the surface waters of Lake Michigan.
If verified, the carvings could be as much as 10,000 years old – coincident with the post-Ice Age presence of both humans and mastodons in the upper Midwest.Stone pictures of a BIG animal.... Harrah!

Traveler

Jan 10th, 2009, 5:59 PM

Stone pictures of a BIG animal.... Harrah!

Exactly. Now what would be expected is that a diver go down there for a closer look and to get more details.

But who is going to fund an exploration that puts humans in a time slot that is too early. Hence the illusion is protected and the gullable deadbeats can keep on mocking the inquisitive back into line.

Freddy

Jan 10th, 2009, 6:26 PM

If verified, the carvings could be as much as 10,000 years old – coincident with the post-Ice Age presence of both humans and mastodons in the upper Midwest.

Exactly. Now what would be expected is that a diver go down there for a closer look and to get more details.

But who is going to fund an exploration that puts humans in a time slot that is too early. Hence the illusion is protected and the gullable deadbeats can keep on mocking the inquisitive back into line.
Excuse me, but are you saying that humans are not 10,000 years old?

DontBeAfraid

Jan 10th, 2009, 9:24 PM

But who is going to fund an exploration that puts humans in a time slot that is too early. Hence the illusion is protected and the gullable deadbeats can keep on mocking the inquisitive back into line.Dude! A drawing on a stone canvas of a person with what is essentially a big ELEPHANT does not place humans and mastodons on the earth at the same time. Especially a primitive picture.

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 10th, 2009, 10:02 PM

Traveler, if you want us to believe that your 'giant' picture is at all credible then you need to present the source.

Also, as for the article you posted about the stones under Lake Michigan, if you read further into the story you will note that it has not even been verified that humans placed the stones, much less carved on them. What they have is a sonar pic of a weird arrangement of stones. That's it...you aren't helping your case by presenting unresearched, unverified stories like that.

J. Cruise

Jan 11th, 2009, 5:32 PM

Wow... Traveler, anyone who knows anything about graphic design (which I have a degree in) can tell you that the photo is staged and shopped, using great camera angles and a lil digital makeup you can recreate the whole thing in your nearest desert with you in there instead of the arabs!!! Yes that's right, you too can be in your own "god proving" fake photo! It amazes me that you can be so simple as to believe that that photo is real!

Present proof is all we're saying, not some digital photo that was clearly a fake, so when you can bring us solid evidence verified by a scientific journal of some sort then we might actually believe you!

Now as for this chris nel person, you scare me! lol... other than your precious holy bible you have no prrof of anything you said so you need to just not speak at all, it doesn't help you here if you can't bring some facts into the equation! And if you think that your holy book is the only one that's right then you are a narrow minded person, there have been religious texts long before the bible, so without the whole "because the bible was inspired by god" bullshit please tell me why anyone should believe in your book instead of any of the others.... oh wait that's right you can't! The jews don't believe jesus was the son of god... and they're "god's chosen people" so, why should any one believe your lil fairytale? Think before you speak here... please because stupidity is my biggest annoyance! lol

Cartesiantheater

Jan 11th, 2009, 7:47 PM

First off you have just issued a blanket statement that this photo is not real. You have no evidence for that, you do not know who took the photo. You do not know if it has been shopped or if it is real. You do not know where it was taken or by whom and under what circumstances.

But you have demonstrated a behaveral trait that I have pointed out all along. If the information does not line up with the preferred scientific theory then it has to be fake. And you learned morons have the gall to say that the religious folk are all brain washed for them to believe in a God.

Well here is some more and I am sure you will have a lot of time to ridicule this as all fake as well because your small little world cannot handle it.
[...]

Dude, a picture from the internet is not legitimate evidence. This is laughable. Do you think for one minute that any evidence of the caliber you presented in this thread FOR evolution was ever accepted in the scientific community? No, and anyone who tried would be laughed out of scientific employment for life. At least the hoaxes that were temporarily accepted consisted of tangible, touchable actual fossils (of course, they were promptly disproved by evolutionists during the peer review process that you want your picture to be able to skip [yet you laughably want the same level of respect given to your photograph]).

You present a picture you found on the internet and expect it to weigh up against the tons of tangible, holdable, tested and verified evidence that has been forced to survive rigorous peer review and cry when we demand that your picture be forced to survive the same gauntlet.

No, you are trying to do what creationists have been trying to do for a century: skip over the rigorous process of peer review. You and your pseudo-scientific brethren go out of your way to relieve your "evidence" of the burdens of peer review that every single main stream accepted piece of evidence has had to pass through or is currently in the process of doing so.

You want special treatment, but you will only get ridicule. A picture off the internet is not evidence. When your giant skeleton is found in a fossil museum, then you can be condescending. Until then, you're just a stubborn fool. Our fossils are in museums, and corroborate with rock solid genetic evidence. Yours are mysteriously absent, except for these marvelous photographs, lol.

Traveler

Jan 11th, 2009, 9:55 PM

Dude, a picture from the internet is not legitimate evidence. This is laughable. Do you think for one minute that any evidence of the caliber you presented in this thread FOR evolution was ever accepted in the scientific community? No, and anyone who tried would be laughed out of scientific employment for life. At least the hoaxes that were temporarily accepted consisted of tangible, touchable actual fossils (of course, they were promptly disproved by evolutionists during the peer review process that you want your picture to be able to skip [yet you laughably want the same level of respect given to your photograph.

If you go back in the thread the evidence I presented was the ruins found around lake Titikaka. The pictures are what other brought up. The pictures are what you guys brought up and you still have not proved that they are indeed fake.

But your statement,

"No, and anyone who tried would be laughed out of scientific employment for life"

Says it all. This is how control over the scientific agenda is maintained. The scientist must toe the community line or no funding is forthcoming and their career ends up in ruins.

Cartesiantheater

Jan 12th, 2009, 7:49 AM

[...]
But your statement,

"No, and anyone who tried would be laughed out of scientific employment for life"

Says it all. This is how control over the scientific agenda is maintained. The scientist must toe the community line or no funding is forthcoming and their career ends up in ruins.

That's a load of crap. The "agenda" is maintained by observable, tangible, unambiguous physical evidence.

ALL of the evidence FOR evolution is non controversial, plain, physical, observable, and tested. You don't even have to be a scientist to realize that SOMETHING is happening to the bacteria that infect us... since they keep "mysteriously" changing just enough to survive the medicines that used to kill them...

In science experimental error can lead to inaccurate results. That is why when you see outlaying data, you repeat the experiment. After thousands of experiment (and thousands of pieces of evidence found), the amount of outlaying data is so small that it is utterly unreasonable to conclude anything other than experimental error. The bottom line is that well over 99 % of the experimental data and physical evidence favors evolution.

You expect scientists to side with the less than 1% outlaying data that clearly comes from either experimental error, deliberate deception, or fundamental misunderstanding?

Cartesiantheater

Jan 12th, 2009, 9:32 AM

Dammit!!! Now I'm gonna have to come up with a new sig!!! GRRRRRRR!!! lol... the rest of them are still IDiots lol

You should put a link to the Ken Miller video, or to his wiki article. Just saying... so people will know where to look :D

J. Cruise

Jan 12th, 2009, 10:18 AM

This is how control over the scientific agenda is maintained. The scientist must toe the community line or no funding is forthcoming and their career ends up in ruins.

Riiiiiiight... the scientific community is the "conspiracy ring leader"!!!! You figured it out Traveler.... You must be a detective huh? Super Sleuth Traveler, that's your new name! lol... So you really expect everyone to believe that scientists are the ones with all the conspiracies? And not xians? lol... dream on, and with all seriousness what little credibility you had before is now gone, they say love makes people blind, but aparently "faith" does too!

Traveler

Jan 12th, 2009, 10:31 AM

Riiiiiiight... the scientific community is the "conspiracy ring leader"!!!! You figured it out Traveler.... You must be a detective huh? Super Sleuth Traveler, that's your new name! lol... So you really expect everyone to believe that scientists are the ones with all the conspiracies? And not xians? lol... dream on, and with all seriousness what little credibility you had before is now gone, they say love makes people blind, but aparently "faith" does too!

Thanks for the fan mail, But please understand that I really do not desire your adoration, it's a pride thing, I like to stay humble!!

Now go tell that to all the ""Discredited Scientists"" that had the integrity to stand their ground when they believed that which was not acceptable to the establishment.

Freddy

Jan 12th, 2009, 7:50 PM

Common sense question on Noah's ark?

Common sense and Noah's Ark are mutually exclusive.

slick116

Jan 12th, 2009, 9:55 PM

Forget the dinasours, I want to know what happened when Noah took two species on the Ark that turned out to be gay!?

I am being a little sarcastic, but based on the fact that i completely don't believe Noah's ark is true (unless it of course was a spaceship from Mars)

And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female (Genesis 6:19).
In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.

The Ark did not need to carry every kind of animal—nor did God command it. It carried only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds. Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth.5 For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

As stated before, Noah wouldn’t have taken the largest animals onto the Ark; it is more likely he took juveniles aboard the Ark to repopulate the earth after the Flood was over. These younger animals also require less space, less food, and have less waste.

Using a short cubit of 18 inches (46 cm) for the Ark to be conservative, Woodmorappe’s conclusion is that “less than half of the cumulative area of the Ark’s three decks need to have been occupied by the animals and their enclosures.”6 This meant there was plenty of room for fresh food, water, and even many other people.

Archangel777

Jan 12th, 2009, 9:56 PM

Thanks for getting this thread back on topic, Slick. If you guys want some more good info to think on, have a look at my post on page 2.

J. Cruise

Jan 13th, 2009, 10:41 AM

And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female (Genesis 6:19).
In the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study4, creationist researcher John Woodmorappe suggests that, at most, 16,000 animals were all that were needed to preserve the created kinds that God brought into the Ark.

The Ark did not need to carry every kind of animal—nor did God command it. It carried only air-breathing, land-dwelling animals, creeping things, and winged animals such as birds. Aquatic life (fish, whales, etc.) and many amphibious creatures could have survived in sufficient numbers outside the Ark. This cuts down significantly the total number of animals that needed to be on board.

Another factor which greatly reduces the space requirements is the fact that the tremendous variety in species we see today did not exist in the days of Noah. Only the parent “kinds” of these species were required to be on board in order to repopulate the earth.5 For example, only two dogs were needed to give rise to all the dog species that exist today.

Creationist estimates for the maximum number of animals that would have been necessary to come on board the Ark have ranged from a few thousand to 35,000, but they may be as few as two thousand if the biblical kind is approximately the same as the modern family classification.

So I'm assuming that you're a believer in a "young earth" if you believe the rest of the BS that just spewed out of your mind, under that assumption I can deduce these: 1) youmust believe in evolution based on your whole "parent 'kinds'" argument. 2) you must believe in evolution on an extremely rapid rate in order for all the wonderful creatures we have today to have come from the "parent 'kinds'" of Noah's time. 3) That you most likely have no scientific credibility without trying to count your handy-dandy bible as a "scientific" text.

Now, just taking dogs alone, you expect us to believe that in just 3,000 years the "parent 'kinds'" of dogs produced: wolves, foxes, coyotes, hyenas, dingos (which consequently eat babies lol), domesticated dogs and if you really wanna go back far enough, Bears: polar, black, brown, grizzly, panda, koala, kodiak, etc. etc. etc. oh and all those precursers to the modern species that are extinct.

Oh and what about penguins? They are land dwelling air breathing BIRDS who spend some of their time in the water but still rely on land masses... which I highly doubt the conditions on the nice big boat were suitable for them. Now what about crocodiles? While aquatic reptiles, they still need land mass, also science has traced their lineage back millions of years thru many different species using geological records, so what did he do about them? I hardly think they would play nice with any of the prey animals.

And did we really lose the unicorns to the lions getting hungry? I'd just like to know lol

Point being you have no credible evidence of anything you speak of but for some reason you lemmings like to just follow the leader with your wonderful book of stories, and claim that "your book is the only right one" which makes you self- righteous and IMHO annoying, you don't need to "save" anyone who doesn't want to follow the herd and you can't prove any of the fiction you call "the bible".

Oh, and how come evolution has slowed down considerrably? I mean in the time frame you expect us to believe surely we would have even more species of dogs and cats and all the other animals compared to the 1500's. So you tell me what happened, which will probably be the age old cop-out of "god didn't want anymore so he stopped everything" BS that you all spew.

Cyranothe2nd

Jan 14th, 2009, 1:16 AM

If you go back in the thread the evidence I presented was the ruins found around lake Titikaka. The pictures are what other brought up. The pictures are what you guys brought up and you still have not proved that they are indeed fake.

But your statement,

"No, and anyone who tried would be laughed out of scientific employment for life"

Says it all. This is how control over the scientific agenda is maintained. The scientist must toe the community line or no funding is forthcoming and their career ends up in ruins.

Again, all we are asking for is the source of the picture...if it is credible then you should be able to provide that. The onus is not on us to prove it is fake (any more than I need to prove that there is a Celestial Teapot orbiting Mars)--it is on you to prove that what you are saying is indeed the case.

And, if anyone would care to look over on page 3, you presented the giant pic because I said there is no credible evidence to suggest that the ruins around Lake Titicaca were built by anything other than human hands.

As for the "scientific agenda"...yes, it is weird how scientists demand proof and use a rigorous peer review system and basically cut off funding and ruin the careers of those who falsify evidence and try to circumvent the peer review system. Its too bad that science has this agenda of academic honesty and evidence.
If only we could all get by with writing an article on Answers in Genesis and calling it 'facts' (Ken Hamm)...or 'peer reviewing' articles in journals all owed by the same man (Phillip Johnson) and reviewed by the same body (the Discovery Institute). Or I could get an online degree and claim to be an expert (a "Masters of Creation Research" from the IRC). These are, of course, all ways of doing no actual scientific work while claiming to be scientifically credible. It is indeed unfortunate that a conspiracy against such mental laziness exists within the scientific community.

Jonzie

Apr 16th, 2009, 10:18 AM

OOOOooooo now this is fun! How about this:

The story of the flood was written by men. It is flawed and full of errors. But it was BASED upon a few prehistoric humans who actually ventured from another PLANET to Earth in a spaceship called "The Ark" with the DNA of most life from the mother planet (enough variety to spawn a vibrant ecosystem). How about, say, Mars?

:D

I'm sure a few Realiens will get a kick out of that.

:abduct:

Actually, the planet was called Malona. We now call it the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Sucker blew up. Where's the water? Asteroids are ice balls. There's your water: it's above our heads, in asteroid belt and in the asteroids. :ohmy:

proffett

Apr 16th, 2009, 11:28 AM

Actually, the planet was called Malona. We now call it the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Sucker blew up. Where's the water? Asteroids are ice balls. There's your water: it's above our heads, in asteroid belt and in the asteroids. :ohmy:

Do you have a source for this? Cuz everything I can find is a story with little, no, make that NO actual research about it.

Blu-ray

Apr 16th, 2009, 1:18 PM

Actually, the planet was called Malona. We now call it the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Sucker blew up. Where's the water? Asteroids are ice balls. There's your water: it's above our heads, in asteroid belt and in the asteroids. :ohmy:

I do believe you have Asteroids and Comets mixed up there.

Cyranothe2nd

Apr 16th, 2009, 4:22 PM

OMG DVD, it looks like the Internets are coming!

kadunk

Feb 27th, 2010, 2:59 PM

Unicorns. The answer is Unicorns.

sea shells that are only the salt water type have
been found as far inland as ohio. sea shells were found 15 miles right here in my town at a construction site.. and no it was not land fill. the site was started in a patch of woods and trees had to be cut down. trees hundreds of years old..

kadunk

Feb 27th, 2010, 3:07 PM

bluenose_ian

Mar 1st, 2010, 8:27 PM

sea shells that are only the salt water type have
been found as far inland as ohio. sea shells were found 15 miles right here in my town at a construction site.. and no it was not land fill. the site was started in a patch of woods and trees had to be cut down. trees hundreds of years old..

lol, How old was the sea shells Kadunk? I presume they are fosilised.

Anarch

Mar 1st, 2010, 9:12 PM

oJfBSc6e7QQ

This theory may be of some relevance to the Flood mythos.

bluenose_ian

Mar 1st, 2010, 9:37 PM

oJfBSc6e7QQ

This theory may be of some relevance to the Flood mythos.

dont forget the subduction zones where the crust get eaten away again.
So I fail to see how it just keeps growing and growing. not that I have watched the clip yet, just saw the headlines " Earth is Growing".

Anarch

Mar 1st, 2010, 9:44 PM

You should watch the video first.

bluenose_ian

Mar 1st, 2010, 10:03 PM

You should watch the video first.

will do tomorow, watching another at the mo.

kadunk

Mar 21st, 2010, 10:38 AM

lycanox

Mar 21st, 2010, 11:12 AM

oJfBSc6e7QQ

This theory may be of some relevance to the Flood mythos.

That is just completely unrealistic. As the movement of some of the continents is different in real life. (India for example used to be separate from Asia.)

And there actually is a great deal of evidence for subduction zones in the form of volcanoes and earthquakes. The spread theory would be completely unable to explain those events.

We also know as a matter of fact that India collided with Asia. If the is no subduction. Then what happened to the ocean floor between those continents?

Besides, if the earth is growing. Then where does all that mass came from?
And what about water. If the earth really was that small back then. The planet would have been a ocean planet for millions of years. While Dinosaurs were land animals.

Mezurashi

Mar 21st, 2010, 11:15 AM

the inventors of that conspiracy theory spent too much time watching the afro grow on their Chia Obama ... the drugs probably added to the problem ...