|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark?
Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
|
On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers?
Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out.
You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
|
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more.
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
|
On April 19 2007 16:45 fusionsdf wrote:
No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Ever heard of a guy named Josephus? Ever heard of... Historians? Scrolls? etc etc? There are plenty of external evidences for the bible. Ever hear of the Hittite civilization? There used to be a time when the bible was considered completely wrong because it mentioned the Hittites and we had not found them.
Well, we know more about them now than we do about the Egyptians.
|
On April 19 2007 16:45 fusionsdf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself
Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country.
|
On April 19 2007 13:29 HumbleZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 13:22 yisun518 wrote:
we were originally zerg, then evolved to protoss, then later mutated to humans, losing psychic links. our god is xel'nage. earth was flooded with hot metallic liquid, not water. the arc was a spaceship, that carried many other animals from everywhere in the universe. You are my hero rofl... xD
gg.
last time i read about the tomb of jesus's family. real people, real place. just as believable as the bible. funny the church is so against it. also the lost gospel of judas, church is very against it as well, even though its historically documented, just as evident as any other gospels.
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases.
Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable.
For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B.
On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out. You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water.
You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
|
On April 19 2007 17:47 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases. Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable. For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out. You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water. You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
god made it work, duh.....
xel'nage owns.
|
On April 19 2007 16:49 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:45 fusionsdf wrote:On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country.
Egypt is a country.
I am 26 feet tall.
I cry cinnamon buns.
Just because a writing contains some things that are factual and citable in other sources does not mean that the rest of it is also factual.
Yes, a large part of the bible, or at least the new testament, is about real people, places and things, but those aren't what is being debated. For instance, few people debate whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there is quite a debate about whether he was the son of god and our savior.
|
On April 19 2007 17:52 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:49 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 16:45 fusionsdf wrote:On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. No. Its not used because there is no support for it outside of the bible. The only thing it cites is itself Boy are you mislead, the Bible cites real people, real places, real events, whether or not God exists is just about the only part that the Bible uses itself for. For example, I would seriously hope that when the Bible mentions Egypt as a country that you would be able to verify that Egypt is indeed a country. Egypt is a country. I am 26 feet tall. I cry cinnamon buns. Just because a writing contains some things that are factual and citable in other sources does not mean that the rest of it is also factual. Yes, a large part of the bible, or at least the new testament, is about real people, places and things, but those aren't what is being debated. For instance, few people debate whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, but there is quite a debate about whether he was the son of god and our savior.
Stop taking things out of context, he implied the Bible is only self-verified, I corrected his error by making an example. When you take things out of context you completely ruin anything the previous people were talking about.
|
On April 19 2007 17:47 testpat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases. Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable. For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B. Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out. You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water. You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood.
First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals.
Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back?
Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night.
Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark?
No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat.
Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2?
Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate.
Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary?
Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
|
On April 19 2007 18:04 Annor[BbG] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 17:47 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 14:45 sith wrote:
At least they are going about it objectively rather than blinding believeing a book written somewhere around 2k years ago. No matter how you look at it that is what christians are doing.
And btw, don't try to claim the bible is historically accurate, if that is true, then why won't my history teacher let anyone cite it in papers? Because your teacher doesn't believe its historically accurate. Doesn't mean it isn't. Your teacher probably believes that apples are better than oranges, but are you going to take his word for it? Not unless you like apples more. Btw, I like your choice of blindly following. It suits what your doing without testing evolution yourself. Your just taking some scientists word for it, because your teacher said the scientist is right, and your teacher's teacher said the scientist is right. Please spare me your claims that your way is superior, our beliefs put us in the exact same boat. I don't choose to describe either theory as blindly, because it just sounds stupid in both cases. Its very strange how bible literalists assume that because they take things as faith without investigation, science must be the same way. They seem unable to understand that if you ask a scientist why X?, he should be able to provide reasons & documentation to support X rather than "god says so". These events can be investigated themselves, experiments should be repeatable. For example, only a literalist would take the statement "Apples are better than oranges - and you would only agree with this if you like apples", and assume that this has any meaning at all. That's a bizarre faith based argument: A is better than B because C says so, I agree with A, therefore C is right". A scientific argument would be A has a better(=longer gestation period) than B because of experiment C. I/others have reviewed/repeated experiment C which confirms/denies A has a longer gestation than B. On April 19 2007 16:43 Annor[BbG] wrote:On April 19 2007 15:51 testpat wrote:On April 19 2007 15:30 evanthebouncy~ wrote:
Hahaha hold on just a moment! were fish on the Ark? Of course, what would the penguins eat? Though maybe God thought the penguins were abominations and sentenced them to die for being black and white and not able to fly. Luckily a penguin prophet named Opus found an iceberg to float on during the flood and the penguins escaped god's judgment. That's why god is opening a hole in the ozone layer above the south pole, to finally wipe them out. You know, they invented fishing for food for a reason. Its ingenious really, fishing for food on the water. You still here? Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? I'll even give you the penguin - they don't have to be on the ark now. Just 57,999 more pairs (your count) or 4 million (see last post) to go. But if you just piped in to let us know you agree god hates penguins - find your own reason for saving them from the flood. First off here is where 58,000 comes from. There are 58,808 vertebrates, half of which are fish, leaving us with 29,000, two of each would be 58,000 again. Hence 58,000 animals. Have you expanded your concept of the ark farther than they fed them, they cleaned up the poop, they shepherded them back? Yeah, I already answered all these questions about 6 pages ago last night. Is fishing the answer of how they fed the ark? No fishing was the answer to how they could have fed the penguins you were hooting and hollering about. I think they were smart and stored food for the couple of months they were on the boat. Have you worked out how magically all the fish survive, seeds from all plants, and all species are repopulated from a initial population of ... 2? Gee sounds a lot easier to repopulate from a number of 2, then to start at 0 like evolution and then populate. Did you go back and read your bible to understand why lighting is necessary? Last I checked, when it rained I could still see outside. Hence light.
Good luck storing months worth of food for 58k animals.
GG BIBLE.
|
On April 19 2007 17:58 Annor[BbG] wrote:
"Stop taking things out of context"
SELF DESTRUCTION COMMENT
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
|
On April 19 2007 18:09 MaxdigsSoda wrote:
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts.
See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context.
How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound.
How could Noah build an ark!!!
BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
Yeah, come on buddy haha...
|
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:09 MaxdigsSoda wrote:
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts. See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context. How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound. How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!! Yeah, come on buddy haha...
I sound like someone who dont want no retards trying to argue factless faithbased 'fantasy' stories as something which is more reasonable than what scientists, and a majority of the modern world consider to be the most likely "theories"(pretty much fact) available. They are only backed by practicly everyone intelligent in the world, but hey, morons like you and annon dont care about that, cause you are retards.
9-0 TO ME I CRUSHED YOU AGAIN
|
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2007 18:09 MaxdigsSoda wrote:
what is going on are you on acid, havnt you been doing that all the time? Oh and completely denying every logical arguement with fantasy explanations, which are suppose to make more sense. Yeah, right. Your faith based 'proof' and defense of christianity doesnt work around here man, only in your church. So shut the Fuck up man. (in my honest opinion) and start bringing some fucking solid shit into the discussion.
oh wait thats impossible cause everything you believe is total bullshit and made up, it also requires complete mindnumbness to be able to actually believe. Great job genius. Suck my nuts. See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^ Oh too bad, they don't see how ridiculous they sound. I'll put it into context. How ridiculous you think we sound? Multiply that by 100, and that's how ridiculous you sound. How could Noah build an ark!!! BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!! Yeah, come on buddy haha...
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.
|
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:
See Annor, they are even more brainwashed here than other forums ^^
Looks like THIS COUPLE SERFING FROM FORUM TO FORUM AND ENLIGHTS UNBELIEVERS!!!11 NOOO
On April 19 2007 18:17 XelNaga wrote:
BUT WE EVOLVED FROM A SINGLE CELL!!!!
NO. We evolved. You didn't.
|
Alright, I'm gonna stop posting in this topic. I feel like an old-timer around all these young-uns.
|
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote:
Looks like THIS COUPLE SERFING FROM FORUM TO FORUM AND ENLIGHTS UNBELIEVERS!!!11 NOOO
Forum surfing? Not really, no.
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote:
NO. We evolved. You didn't.[/QUOTE]
Cool? How does it feel to be completely meaningless? No point to life.. Just a mistake? Really, whats the point in living, you have no reason.. No purpose.. No meaning. Evolving.. Not really all that fun eh?
I can see it now "But you never told me!!!!!!!" Hmm.. Poor guy ;(
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 sith wrote:
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.[/QUOTE]
We've done that conclusively? Big bang --> Light Photons (initiated the bang) --> Where did they come from? Do you know? Can you explain it? Or is it still a thorn in scientists side? The assumption is that how it started doesn't really matter, right? Because frankly you can't explain it. I say why not? If you can't explain the very beginning, isn't your whole theory screwed and unprovable until you do? So really.. it's a faith based theory?
But, I won't bring up that point, because it's like asking my philosophical questions.. Oh wait, I had an answer for the one asked me, maybe I should ask you guys that? Millions of species? Adaptation? I have no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution Creationism disagrees with.
Now shhh, you've got nothing conclusively proven. Just faith, assumption and ignorance (seriously).
I see no evidence that you exist other than the fact that you're writing words down. Should I assume that because there is no outside evidence of you existing that you don't?
|
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:40 XelNaga wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote:
Looks like THIS COUPLE SERFING FROM FORUM TO FORUM AND ENLIGHTS UNBELIEVERS!!!11 NOOO
Forum surfing? Not really, no.
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 InRaged wrote:
NO. We evolved. You didn't.[/QUOTE]
Cool? How does it feel to be completely meaningless? No point to life.. Just a mistake? Really, whats the point in living, you have no reason.. No purpose.. No meaning. Evolving.. Not really all that fun eh?
I can see it now "But you never told me!!!!!!!" Hmm.. Poor guy ;(
[QUOTE]On April 19 2007 18:30 sith wrote:
But...there are people who have dedicated their lives to showing how we did evolve from a single cell, and have done conclusively. Go read some books, You too can get this magical substance we on the planet Earth call knowledge. On the other hand...Noah building an ark...the logistics alone cause it to be basically impossible as far as I know, and there is no evidence other than ANCIENT religious texts that there was actually a repopulation of Earth based on 58k creatures or w/e. And plus if you do say there were 58k, then how do you explain the millions of species around today? EVOLUTION MAYBE??? OH THATS RIGHT GOD DID IT.[/QUOTE]
We've done that conclusively? Big bang --> Light Photons (initiated the bang) --> Where did they come from? Do you know? Can you explain it? Or is it still a thorn in scientists side? The assumption is that how it started doesn't really matter what right, because frankly you can't explain it. I say why not? If you can't explain the very beginning, isn't your whole theory screwed?
But, I won't bring up that point, because it's like asking my philosophical questions.. Oh wait, I had an answer for the one asked me, maybe I should ask you guys that? Millions of species? Adaptation? I have no problem with micro evolution, it's macro evolution Creationism disagrees with.
Now shhh, you've got nothing conclusively proven. Just faith, assumption and ignorance (seriously).[/QUOTE]
Haha dude you completely fuck around with everything dont you, pm me your msn/aim so i can crush you, if you dare..
ITS A DARE PEOPLEe
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
