100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let's Try This Again | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
beachbum, not you too? let's look at your post of copy and paste evidence for loopholes shall we?   Using your same source wikipedia: Jericho (Arabic أريحا (help·info), ʼArīḥā; Hebrew יְרִיחוֹ (help·info), Standard Yəriḥo Tiberian Yərîḫô / Yərîḥô; Greek Ἱεριχώ) is a town in the West Bank of the Palestinian territories, located within the Jericho Governorate, near the Jordan River. Its name may be derived from the word meaning "moon" in Hebrew and Canaanite, as the city was an early center of worship for lunar deities.[2] Despite the city's long history, Jericho was first mentioned in the Book of Numbers. Jericho is believed to be the oldest continuously-inhabited city of the world,[3] and archaeologists have unearthed the remains of over 20 successive settlements there, dating back to 11,000 years ago (9000 BCE).[4] Jericho has a population of approximately 25,000 Palestinians.[5] The current mayor is Hassan Saleh, a former lawyer. Three separate settlements have existed at or near the current location for more than 11,000 years. The position is on an east-west route north of the Dead Sea. believed to be? a caveat? a guess? conjecture? of course. and radio carbon dating is completely inept as a means of dating anything credibly. That is widely known and imperically sound as the blinds have proved. wiki pedia indeed.  a charitable web site doing its best to copy and paste anything and everything and confirming noting as fact or truth. sloppy. lazy. keep dancing... join the crowd..... dance kiddies, dance..... Here's more links for your reading pleasure. This list even includes some Christian and Jewish sites. http://www.crystalinks.com/jericho.html http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Jericho_Tell_Sultan.html http://www.atlastours.net/holyland/jericho.html http://www.ffhl.org/2006/jericho.asp http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/vie/Jericho.html http://www.jewishmag.com/31mag/jericho/jericho.htm http://www.answers.com/topic/jericho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After that I work on developing Smart Bombs for a whole different company and keep the beer a top secret. Abra, Do smart bombs make you smart? Is that why you are so smart?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OW: Isn't in a little naive to take everything you read at a literal value? Tribo: no it's >>>alot nieve!!<<< not even the bible can be taken literally, nor can any other info that does not have physical proof. MO Then why do people continually do this? I can understand wanting to believe in something because it brings you comfort or whatever the situation might be but to take all of these stories literally from the bible, it doesn’t seem necessary. Or to attempt to shove it down the throats of others. People do what they do K, because of faith - whether it be in a book or expierience or their imagination. Not all use both logic and reasoning to there best advantage - sometimes not even I. - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After that I work on developing Smart Bombs for a whole different company and keep the beer a top secret. Abra, Do smart bombs make you smart? Is that why you are so smart? Yep, that's what happened alright. I was working on a smart bomb one day and BOOM! it went off and I ain't been dumb since. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After that I work on developing Smart Bombs for a whole different company and keep the beer a top secret. Abra, Do smart bombs make you smart? Is that why you are so smart? the avoidence of bombs and weapons of any kind make you smart or at least logical. but not necessarily - reasonable hahaha |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you don't get it, do you, Krimsa? You really are missing the point. I apologize. Let me make it simple. If evolution is true, then jesus blood is not significant. Since the blood is the extant of the metaphort of the life and the life in Christ is God himself, and since this whole infantile establishment of sacrificing anything and the shedding of blood has anything to do with explaining the inexplicable on a level incomprehensible at its finest, then the blood is pertinent to the premise of evolution's efficacy. Meaning, if Jesus is just evolved from goo then he is meat with a brain and an idea and played his idea out on the unsuspecting in his community. it's that simple. evolution is an exercise in woerking backwards from that premise. It's that simple. There is no other motive logical enough to impart the outcome of the pursuit from the outset. Deconstructing God, is the hope and aspiration of the proponents of evolution. study every 'if' in every document of that hypothetical charade, as I have and do, and you will find that there are escape clauses in every deduction made and in ever conclusion reached and in every consensus assumed, as long as the 'ifs' are given merit, then the whole charade is applauded as possible. It is not about the dna, at all. who cares? that is another foolish distraction meaning nothing. evolution conjecture is flawed, faulty, incomplete, hypothetical only, and assumptions given to it. It is not fact, truth, or complete. It is a dead end. Darwin died, evolution died, and God is alive. Seek him.  period.  How can I seek something that can't be seen? Something that not even the most devout christian can not even prove its existance beyond a shadow of a doubt? As Abra said: Blind Faith all the way!! Big Jim, you miss the point. you need not put yourself in any box and conform to anyone else in your beliefs of God. Christian thought is extant for the believer in the incumbancy of being apprehended by the Holy Spirit and that is the conditional aspect of faith in beileving God is in Jesus Christ and for us to be apprehended of likewise. That has nothing to do with believing that evolution is fact. Nothing about evolution is fact, it is merely conjecture parading around as FACT. There is no truth to lies and deceit and manipulation of evidence to suggest a foregone conclusion of observations made when the conclusion is precipitating the assumptions demanded on the insufficiency of the evidence. The goal of such foolishness is to declare God dead at some point, not to discredit your belief in God. What you or I or anyone else believes is immaterial to that hidden agenda. Can you see the difference? The faulty science and wishful thinking of these idiots is embraced stupidly when it is not challenged and held to account for its conclusions. It has failed. in time, the textbooks will be restored to refer to this foiolishness as merely conjecture and in that regard some good will come from the knowledge gleaned from some of the evidence it has stolen to further its tainted and nefarious plot to overthrow the minds of the unaware. Where I land on the topic as a christian is immaterial to the to the fallacy of the "evolutionist" rhetoric and conjecture. What is materially incumbent upon the whole notion evolution is that it was an attempt to declare God dead from the beginning and that hasn't changed at all. the ramifications for blurring the lines between fact and fiction is wholly and completely arrogant and deceitful in its obstinate and illogical intent and conclusions about the origins of man. It just doesn't fly, nor does the Big Bang explanation, which is just a differnt way of saying, "if it quacks like a duck it must be a giraffe." The fact is, that man is man and a duck is a duck and until they can prove otherwise, it is jjust a fanciful muse worthy of imaginery entertainment and nothing more. Employing lies and deceit and arrogantly cloaking qualiificatiuons and justifications for making leaps with gusses is not the employment of truth and there is no truth at all in anything that is a hidden agenda cloaking assumptions. That is not a religious issue. It is a moral issue and an ethical issue at the very least. It has become an emotional hot button for those that fancy themselves as religious that are not christians, and have fooled some christians into acceeding to the possibilites of their faulty science. But whether or not Christians realize it or not, this issue really has nothing to do with christianity anyway. It has to do with the ignorance and pride of foolish men that will employ any means necessary to further their intended goals on any at the expense of the facvts and the pursuit of truth, in general. It is one of many fronts plaguing mankind. Science has wittingly allowed itself to be hijacked by nefarious idiots with an agenda in mind to revise our inherent understanding of nature and our environment at any cost. They are th first to cry foul at the religious communtiy when they do not get their way without scrutiny. Their temper tantrums merely employ deflecting their nefarious and spurious agenda as being the motive of those holding them accountable and responsible for their own hidden agenda, when in fact they are only be asked to prove their conclusions which are impossibly void of every being possible, at the expense of the truth so left behind in their foolishness . get it yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jenniebean brings forth what she believes is evidence as evolution but i disagree, if the animal had brought forth a goat or a monkey or some other animal rather than one which still quite closely resembles its ancestry, then that would be a proof beyond a doubt. But a horse and a mule bringing forth a kind that much resembles its parents not. I don't care what the jump is - only that it can be shown now at present time to be such. That i have not been able to deduce from any such as i have read or seen on so far. Do you have proof of such? A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.? I brought forth the story of the Mule who gave birth because Feralcat said that all she wanted one ONE NEW ANIMAL. Now the mule itself is not a new animal as it has been produced for years by crossing a horse with a donkey which cannot reproduce. Hence a mule is not a species of its own right. BUT a mule who gives birth to a foal is a different story. It is still a mule, and the foal may still be a mule, but it proves that SOMETHING different evolved to allow that mule to now procreate its own kind within its own kind. I had heard for years that there was no way a mule could give birth. Unless this is some kind of hoax, that has been proven wrong or else some kind of evolution is taking place. JB sorry goddess, wasn't trying to make light of your proof, but what i meant is i want to see clear unadultrated evidence of a bird turning into a monkey or something that is along those lines. I don't think it actually happened that way Tribo. A bird into a monkey? I don't think so. Information for the evolution of many different lines is contained in the quantum soup and they split off at certain cross points. A bird's evolutionary line is probably very different from a monkey's. If you think changes can't happen very quickly think again. Ever watch an ugly slug changed into a butterfly? Ever watch a tadpole change into a toad? Ever see a lizard grow a tail back? Ever see a were animal? (oops that one probably you have not seen. Ever see a shape shifter? (I have) JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krimsa wrote: Then why do people continually do this? I can understand wanting to believe in something because it brings you comfort or whatever the situation might be but to take all of these stories literally from the bible, it doesn’t seem necessary. Or to attempt to shove it down the throats of others. It's not necessary at all. People who genuinely have faith in God don't do these things. The people who do these things are troubled and confused. Our job as Internet counselors is to argue with them thus giving them the illusion that they have something worth arguing about. If we were to suddenly disappear they would have no one to cater to their delusions and they'd be back out on the street where they might hurt someone. So keep typing as fast as you can!!!  Entertain any argument no matter how silly it sounds. They have no concept of rationality anyway.  This is cheaper than having to pay taxes to house them in asylums!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our job as Internet counselors is to argue with them thus giving them the illusion that they have something worth arguing about. (_e=mc2_) You are so funny. When do I get paid for all this counseling? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our job as Internet counselors is to argue with them thus giving them the illusion that they have something worth arguing about. (_e=mc2_) You are so funny. When do I get paid for all this counseling? probably when god turns up! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(_e=mc2_) You are so funny. When do I get paid for all this counseling? It's in the taxes we save by not having to build asylums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a penny for your thoughts, as they say.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Tue 08/12/08 04:25 PM
|
|
Jenniebean brings forth what she believes is evidence as evolution but i disagree, if the animal had brought forth a goat or a monkey or some other animal rather than one which still quite closely resembles its ancestry, then that would be a proof beyond a doubt. But a horse and a mule bringing forth a kind that much resembles its parents not. I don't care what the jump is - only that it can be shown now at present time to be such. That i have not been able to deduce from any such as i have read or seen on so far. Do you have proof of such? A clear line of man evolving from apes that had evolved from lemurs or dogs or cats or fish or less than this? just asking.? I brought forth the story of the Mule who gave birth because Feralcat said that all she wanted one ONE NEW ANIMAL. Now the mule itself is not a new animal as it has been produced for years by crossing a horse with a donkey which cannot reproduce. Hence a mule is not a species of its own right. BUT a mule who gives birth to a foal is a different story. It is still a mule, and the foal may still be a mule, but it proves that SOMETHING different evolved to allow that mule to now procreate its own kind within its own kind. I had heard for years that there was no way a mule could give birth. Unless this is some kind of hoax, that has been proven wrong or else some kind of evolution is taking place. JB sorry goddess, wasn't trying to make light of your proof, but what i meant is i want to see clear unadultrated evidence of a bird turning into a monkey or something that is along those lines. I don't think it actually happened that way Tribo. A bird into a monkey? I don't think so. Information for the evolution of many different lines is contained in the quantum soup and they split off at certain cross points. A bird's evolutionary line is probably very different from a monkey's. If you think changes can't happen very quickly think again. Ever watch an ugly slug changed into a butterfly? Ever watch a tadpole change into a toad? Ever see a lizard grow a tail back? Ever see a were animal? (oops that one probably you have not seen. Ever see a shape shifter? (I have) JB sorry G, i was being way off the wall but my intent is still the same, outside of "were beings" and shapeshifters, i'm just reffering to some evidence that dinosaurs became birds. i know that things can "mutate" and we have seen evidence of such things but i'm talking a fossil record or substance of - a reptile with feathers and not the one fossil they have that shows the reptile looking bird with teeth - i mean a reptile intermediate that shows feathers in full bloom where the identity can not be mistaken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not new the Mule.....and Donkey + Horse = Mule All the same family
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After that I work on developing Smart Bombs for a whole different company and keep the beer a top secret. Abra, Do smart bombs make you smart? Is that why you are so smart? I would like further tests conducted please.. I think he is a great story teller.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This whole creationism bit drives me mad. In my mind, the theory of evolution does not, in any way, disprove the presence of a divine being (or several :P). Who's to say we weren't created as one thing first, then gently changed as the world changed around us? Why can't the hand of the divine be in that? Everything changes, in some small way, as it's surrounding environment alters. Why cant we? If god created us in his own image (not my opinion), could that not mean something more subtle than 'god looks just like me'? Isn't in a little naive to take everything you read at a literal value? insight so deep it would threaten to shatter the illusion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would justify my arguements on evolution but it would be a waste of time. In a million years I hope there is still human life on this planet. If there is, i hope they have better to do than talk about us. In reference to the bible, the most important passage is Mark 4 24-25. The Golden Rule. U might want to read it. Please show me....... Mark 4: 24-25 24"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. 25Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." But you left out the best one....what a shame 21He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 22For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." Please show me....... Mark 4: 24-25 24"Consider carefully what you hear," he continued. "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you—and even more. 25Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." But you left out the best one....what a shame 21He said to them, "Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or a bed? Instead, don't you put it on its stand? 22For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. 23If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." Literal Christians, gotta love the niavity. I read this section and the first thing I thought was "Are you literally giving the evolutionist a foot to stand on?" Most people think that Christ was speaking only of the church in this text. I believe he was speaking to man in broader terms. He was warning us to listen to the knowledge of our forefathers. That the collection of wisdom of the ages is important to learn and understand. I'm quite certain that, assuming he is God as people claim, Jesus had full knowledge of the scientific evidience that man would find in the future (this is what being omnipitant means). So if he is telling us not to hide knowledge, why is it so hard for Christians to accept that all knowledge comes from God? What is so hard to understand that God only opens the eyes of the scientist so that he understands what God already knows? Do you think we could have this knowledge without him? Evolution does not fly in the face of Christianity. It is God's way of saying "yeah, that's how I did it." Wouldee WTF is the deal with a birds wing? Sure they have hollow bones so they can fly. So did the pterydactyls, and they were reptiles. By the way, other than the bones being hollow, a birds wing and a bats wing both have the same bone construction as the human arm above the wrist. Same could be said of whale, seal and dolphin fins, all of which are mammals and are the evolutionary connection to the sea. We weren't fish, we were dolphins. It took a lot of reading to get this far, thanks for getting me through the last two hours of the work day!!! orations of truth that shake feeble minds to courage and strength to leave what gave comfort as self wisdom....... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on a closer look it seems the "micro-raptor" is the best bet for a transitional reptile to bird scenario [as to feathers] - but it still doesn't answer the question of how a "cold blooded" reptile - turns into a "warm-blooded" animal like the bird able to withstand even Artic temps.? It's like if they get one piece to fit another still doesn't? So again i remain a skeptic as to evolution. to much to find out about yet.
I'll stick to my original premise that man came here from somewhere else and has devolved - not evolved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on a closer look it seems the "micro-raptor" is the best bet for a transitional reptile to bird scenario [as to feathers] - but it still doesn't answer the question of how a "cold blooded" reptile - turns into a "warm-blooded" animal like the bird able to withstand even Artic temps.? It's like if they get one piece to fit another still doesn't? So again i remain a skeptic as to evolution. to much to find out about yet. I'll stick to my original premise that man came here from somewhere else and has devolved - not evolved. Actually there is no proof that raptors were cold blooded or that even dinosaurs were. People assume that since snakes and alligators are "cold blooded" that all reptilian creatures were. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on a closer look it seems the "micro-raptor" is the best bet for a transitional reptile to bird scenario [as to feathers] - but it still doesn't answer the question of how a "cold blooded" reptile - turns into a "warm-blooded" animal like the bird able to withstand even Artic temps.? It's like if they get one piece to fit another still doesn't? So again i remain a skeptic as to evolution. to much to find out about yet. I'll stick to my original premise that man came here from somewhere else and has devolved - not evolved. Actually there is no proof that raptors were cold blooded or that even dinosaurs were. People assume that since snakes and alligators are "cold blooded" that all reptilian creatures were. JB as far as i know goddess - all reptiles today are cold blooded even the komodo dragon which is the closet thing we have to a dinosaur so to say. but i agree - no one knows for sure or ever will, unless they reconstruct a dna clone of one in the future. |
|
|
|
|
