100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: OK GOD I can handle it from here? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Not necessarily. It's a THEORY of evolution. A theory is nothing more then an educated guess. Jesus came, was crucified, and afterwards God said "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased". Now you can say oh that's just hearsay rumors, you can not prove that, or anything along those lines. But bottom line NOTHING can be proven unless one is willing to accept the evidence of it. You can NOT prove to someone that we have walked on the moon less, that person is willing to accept the evidence of such happening. Could come up with many excuses to disclaim it, could say well those videos are phoney, it's part of the governments propaganda to make them self look great and intelligent, and many many other possibilities. Any form of evidence you show for evolution I could easily show how it could be a hoax, could be made up, could be many of other possibilities. So again no there's not more evidence to evolution as their is to God. The evidence of God is all around us. You don't need a book, don't need someone else telling you, don't need anything to see it but your own will. Any form of evidence you show for evolution I could easily show how it could be a hoax, could be made up, could be many of other possibilities. You talk about unsupportable theories or guesses, but what you say here makes no sense at all really. You'd need us to accept the hypothesis that the vast majority of the scientists in the world are out to purposefully create a hoax. As far as I'm concerned an idea like that could be nothing more than pure paranoia on your part. Besides, you keep referring to the biblical story of God. Especially the New Testament. But where's the evidence for that? It's doesn't exist, especially in terms of the outrageous claims of miracles etc. And look at that text, it was only written by a handful of authors you're only talking about 5 major authors, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. All all of those authors could have read each others work. In fact, most scholars are in agreement that Matthew and Luke are just rehashed versions of the writings of Mark. So if we're going to expect something to be a hoax, it would be the New Testament. Moreover, many of the things that are being claimed in the New Testament have absolutely no evidence outside of those stories. For example, Jesus is said to have gone around curing all manner of disease, yet there is absolutely no independent historical accounts of any guy going around performing any such miracles at the rate or abundance that the Hoax Testament claims. The New Testament claims that voice came from heaven proclaiming to a crowd of people that Jesus was the son of God. But there is no independent record of any such event in history. They only place where hear of this miracle is in the New Testament. The New Testament claims that a multitude of saints were risen from their graves at the time Jesus was supposedly resurrected and that they went into the city and showed themselves to the people there. Yet, nary a single solitary shred of independent historical evidence exists to back up this claim. The list goes on and on. If we're going to assume that something was a hoax, our best choice would be the New Testament. You seem to be prepared to trump millions of dedicated and educated modern scientists as being a "hoax", using nothing more than an ancient totally unsupported rumor that was written by less than a handful of men. And then you expect us to believe that the New Testament rumors should be accepted as truth? You've got to be kidding. So again no there's not more evidence to evolution as their is to God. That's just wishful thinking on your part. And this is especially true of you're speaking of the Biblical God. We have absolutely no evidence that the Biblical God exists. No more evidence than we have that Zeus existed. The evidence of God is all around us. You don't need a book, don't need someone else telling you, don't need anything to see it but your own will. Again, this isn't true. Where's the evidence for a God, of any kind? Also, even if you could suggest reasons for believing in some sort of supernatural power, why should that automatically be associated with the biblical fables? It most certainly shouldn't be! Unless you can show a specific link to those particular fables. Anything you show that appears to possibly be some sort of "supernatural" miracle, divination, or anything of that sort, could be evidence for any number of religions or spiritual philosophies. It could even be used as evidence for Zeus. With all due respect, I see no value in any religion that has a Zeus-like male Godhead plotting and conniving to have his son nailed to a pole as a means of offering salvation to mankind.  I'm sorry, but from my perspective that totally flies in the face of a supposedly "All-wise" God right there. So the very claims of the religion that you support not only don't have any evidence to back them up, but they don't even appear to be very wise or divine in the first place. Why would I want to believe that the creator of humanity can't solve problems any better than a barroom drunkard could? If God is supposed to be all-intelligent, I'd expect to see an intelligent account of God before I would consider it to potentially be a valid picture of God. You're asking us to reject all of science. Confirmed conclusions based on the independent research and evidence of millions of dedicated scientists, all of whom would LOVE to prove each other wrong! That would only get them a Nobel Prize and world renowned fame. And then after asking us to accept science as a "hoax", you expect us to accept an ancient rumor that was written by less than a handful of highly questionable authors? Outrageous rumors that aren't even backed up by independent historical reports or evidence? You're going to ask us to trump modern science using nothing more than the hearsay rumors from an extremely questionable ancient fable? With all due respect, that's not even a remotely reasonable request, IMHO. If there's any truth to a spiritual essence of life, it's most likely along the lines of Eastern Mysticism, or in the form of our own "higher self" as Jeanniebean puts it. Moreover, if we go with Eastern Mysticism we don't even need to worry about science at all because Eastern Mysticism is perfectly compatible with everything that modern science knows. That should tell us something truly powerful right there! If there is a spiritual essence to life, it's most likely compatible with what modern scientists have observed. Therefore we actually have secular evidence that loans support to Eastern Mysticism! And zero evidence, historically or scientific, that supports the Mediterranean view of jealous egotistical patriarchal Godheads like Zeus or Yahweh. You're trying to sell a religion that conflicts with science. You say, "The evidence of God is all around us." The kind of evidence that you're talking about here supports the Eastern Mystical view of God too! So there's no need to go running off to the Bible on that account. You may as well run off to the fables of Zeus if you're going to do that. If you consider Eastern Mysticism, you then have a spiritual philosophy that doesn't conflict with known science. That, my friend, would be the most likely candidate for a spiritual essence to life if you ask me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/04/11 06:01 AM
|
|
A theory is nothing more then an educated guess. The key here is the term EDUCATED. A theory is much more than a guess. It is supported by a lot of evidence. Personally I see a lot of "evidence" in favor of intelligent design but I don't believe in a creator god or his alleged son. That's like saying you believe in evolution but you don't believe in the big bang. Or that man evolved from monkeys. No its not at all. Evolution happens of course, but that does not mean there is not an intelligence operating behind it. It's some kind of consciousness. Wallace Wattles calls it "a thinking stuff." THERE is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe. A thought in this substance produces the thing that is imaged by the thought. Man can form things in his thought, and by impressing his thought upon formless substance can cause the thing he thinks about to be created. Man did not evolve from "monkeys" If he did, there would be no monkeys. LOL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: Not necessarily. It's a THEORY of evolution. A theory is nothing more then an educated guess. Jesus came, was crucified, and afterwards God said "This is my son in whom I'm well pleased". Now you can say oh that's just hearsay rumors, you can not prove that, or anything along those lines. But bottom line NOTHING can be proven unless one is willing to accept the evidence of it. You can NOT prove to someone that we have walked on the moon less, that person is willing to accept the evidence of such happening. Could come up with many excuses to disclaim it, could say well those videos are phoney, it's part of the governments propaganda to make them self look great and intelligent, and many many other possibilities. Any form of evidence you show for evolution I could easily show how it could be a hoax, could be made up, could be many of other possibilities. So again no there's not more evidence to evolution as their is to God. The evidence of God is all around us. You don't need a book, don't need someone else telling you, don't need anything to see it but your own will. Any form of evidence you show for evolution I could easily show how it could be a hoax, could be made up, could be many of other possibilities. You talk about unsupportable theories or guesses, but what you say here makes no sense at all really. You'd need us to accept the hypothesis that the vast majority of the scientists in the world are out to purposefully create a hoax. As far as I'm concerned an idea like that could be nothing more than pure paranoia on your part. Besides, you keep referring to the biblical story of God. Especially the New Testament. But where's the evidence for that? It's doesn't exist, especially in terms of the outrageous claims of miracles etc. And look at that text, it was only written by a handful of authors you're only talking about 5 major authors, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and Paul. All all of those authors could have read each others work. In fact, most scholars are in agreement that Matthew and Luke are just rehashed versions of the writings of Mark. So if we're going to expect something to be a hoax, it would be the New Testament. Moreover, many of the things that are being claimed in the New Testament have absolutely no evidence outside of those stories. For example, Jesus is said to have gone around curing all manner of disease, yet there is absolutely no independent historical accounts of any guy going around performing any such miracles at the rate or abundance that the Hoax Testament claims. The New Testament claims that voice came from heaven proclaiming to a crowd of people that Jesus was the son of God. But there is no independent record of any such event in history. They only place where hear of this miracle is in the New Testament. The New Testament claims that a multitude of saints were risen from their graves at the time Jesus was supposedly resurrected and that they went into the city and showed themselves to the people there. Yet, nary a single solitary shred of independent historical evidence exists to back up this claim. The list goes on and on. If we're going to assume that something was a hoax, our best choice would be the New Testament. You seem to be prepared to trump millions of dedicated and educated modern scientists as being a "hoax", using nothing more than an ancient totally unsupported rumor that was written by less than a handful of men. And then you expect us to believe that the New Testament rumors should be accepted as truth? You've got to be kidding. So again no there's not more evidence to evolution as their is to God. That's just wishful thinking on your part. And this is especially true of you're speaking of the Biblical God. We have absolutely no evidence that the Biblical God exists. No more evidence than we have that Zeus existed. The evidence of God is all around us. You don't need a book, don't need someone else telling you, don't need anything to see it but your own will. Again, this isn't true. Where's the evidence for a God, of any kind? Also, even if you could suggest reasons for believing in some sort of supernatural power, why should that automatically be associated with the biblical fables? It most certainly shouldn't be! Unless you can show a specific link to those particular fables. Anything you show that appears to possibly be some sort of "supernatural" miracle, divination, or anything of that sort, could be evidence for any number of religions or spiritual philosophies. It could even be used as evidence for Zeus. With all due respect, I see no value in any religion that has a Zeus-like male Godhead plotting and conniving to have his son nailed to a pole as a means of offering salvation to mankind. I'm sorry, but from my perspective that totally flies in the face of a supposedly "All-wise" God right there. So the very claims of the religion that you support not only don't have any evidence to back them up, but they don't even appear to be very wise or divine in the first place. Why would I want to believe that the creator of humanity can't solve problems any better than a barroom drunkard could? If God is supposed to be all-intelligent, I'd expect to see an intelligent account of God before I would consider it to potentially be a valid picture of God. You're asking us to reject all of science. Confirmed conclusions based on the independent research and evidence of millions of dedicated scientists, all of whom would LOVE to prove each other wrong! That would only get them a Nobel Prize and world renowned fame. And then after asking us to accept science as a "hoax", you expect us to accept an ancient rumor that was written by less than a handful of highly questionable authors? Outrageous rumors that aren't even backed up by independent historical reports or evidence? You're going to ask us to trump modern science using nothing more than the hearsay rumors from an extremely questionable ancient fable? With all due respect, that's not even a remotely reasonable request, IMHO. If there's any truth to a spiritual essence of life, it's most likely along the lines of Eastern Mysticism, or in the form of our own "higher self" as Jeanniebean puts it. Moreover, if we go with Eastern Mysticism we don't even need to worry about science at all because Eastern Mysticism is perfectly compatible with everything that modern science knows. That should tell us something truly powerful right there! If there is a spiritual essence to life, it's most likely compatible with what modern scientists have observed. Therefore we actually have secular evidence that loans support to Eastern Mysticism! And zero evidence, historically or scientific, that supports the Mediterranean view of jealous egotistical patriarchal Godheads like Zeus or Yahweh. You're trying to sell a religion that conflicts with science. You say, "The evidence of God is all around us." The kind of evidence that you're talking about here supports the Eastern Mystical view of God too! So there's no need to go running off to the Bible on that account. You may as well run off to the fables of Zeus if you're going to do that. If you consider Eastern Mysticism, you then have a spiritual philosophy that doesn't conflict with known science. That, my friend, would be the most likely candidate for a spiritual essence to life if you ask me. You're going to ask us to trump modern science using nothing more than the hearsay rumors from an extremely questionable ancient fable? Not totally no. The bible told of things long before "science" did. www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml I would copy/paste the information from the site and not use a reference but there is ALOT to read up on. The bible contains just as much knowledge as we have now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The bible contains just as much knowledge as we have now. Hogwash. That's simply not true. In fact, if there were any truth to that at all scientists would be extremely impressed by it. But the fact is, there is no truth to that claim whatsoever. The web site you link too starts off with a completely absurdity. It's states that the Bible is consistent with Paleontology by claiming that two so-called "dinosaurs" are supposedly being described in the book of Job. There are several problems with this. First off, God is speaking to Job in the book of Job as though Job should be familiar with the animals he's describing. Yet, if God is supposedly describing dinosaurs, then Job would have no experience with them since they did not exit at the same time that man existed. Moreover, if you claim that they supposedly did co-exist with man then that would not be consistent with Paleontology or science, and so your theory that the Bible contains scientific knowledge no longer holds valid. Secondly, in Job one of the beasts that God describes to Job supposedly breaths fire and smoke and flames spew from its nostrils. Clearly, Job is just common mythology of people who still imagined that fire-breathing dragons might exist. Hardly support for anything that science has to say. Also, the writings in the bible refer to the moon like the sun and the stars and speak of it as though it emits light. Science has shown us that this is not true, it simply reflects the light of the sun. There's nothing impressive in the bible at all. If it wasn't for religious fanatics making utterly outrageous and unsupportable claims about these ancient texts they would have been placed on the shelf marked "fiction" right next to Greek Mythology a long time ago. The only thing that keeps them going are the outright lies of religious fanatics. The Bible isn't even consistent with science at all. The world could not have been created in six days, and mankind most certainly did not appear on the 6th day of "creation". So there's really no need to go much further than that. We can toss the whole mythology aside in the very early chapters of the very first fable in the cannon. It's obviously just mythology written by people who had absolutely no clue about how old the universe truly is, or how long it took mankind to evolve on planet Earth. And you're trying to claim that the bible supports scientific knowledge? That's not even a reasonable claim, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The bible contains just as much knowledge as we have now. Hogwash. That's simply not true. In fact, if there were any truth to that at all scientists would be extremely impressed by it. But the fact is, there is no truth to that claim whatsoever. The web site you link too starts off with a completely absurdity. It's states that the Bible is consistent with Paleontology by claiming that two so-called "dinosaurs" are supposedly being described in the book of Job. There are several problems with this. First off, God is speaking to Job in the book of Job as though Job should be familiar with the animals he's describing. Yet, if God is supposedly describing dinosaurs, then Job would have no experience with them since they did not exit at the same time that man existed. Moreover, if you claim that they supposedly did co-exist with man then that would not be consistent with Paleontology or science, and so your theory that the Bible contains scientific knowledge no longer holds valid. Secondly, in Job one of the beasts that God describes to Job supposedly breaths fire and smoke and flames spew from its nostrils. Clearly, Job is just common mythology of people who still imagined that fire-breathing dragons might exist. Hardly support for anything that science has to say. Also, the writings in the bible refer to the moon like the sun and the stars and speak of it as though it emits light. Science has shown us that this is not true, it simply reflects the light of the sun. There's nothing impressive in the bible at all. If it wasn't for religious fanatics making utterly outrageous and unsupportable claims about these ancient texts they would have been placed on the shelf marked "fiction" right next to Greek Mythology a long time ago. The only thing that keeps them going are the outright lies of religious fanatics. The Bible isn't even consistent with science at all. The world could not have been created in six days, and mankind most certainly did not appear on the 6th day of "creation". So there's really no need to go much further than that. We can toss the whole mythology aside in the very early chapters of the very first fable in the cannon. It's obviously just mythology written by people who had absolutely no clue about how old the universe truly is, or how long it took mankind to evolve on planet Earth. And you're trying to claim that the bible supports scientific knowledge? That's not even a reasonable claim, IMHO. english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The bible contains just as much knowledge as we have now. Hogwash. That's simply not true. In fact, if there were any truth to that at all scientists would be extremely impressed by it. But the fact is, there is no truth to that claim whatsoever. The web site you link too starts off with a completely absurdity. It's states that the Bible is consistent with Paleontology by claiming that two so-called "dinosaurs" are supposedly being described in the book of Job. There are several problems with this. First off, God is speaking to Job in the book of Job as though Job should be familiar with the animals he's describing. Yet, if God is supposedly describing dinosaurs, then Job would have no experience with them since they did not exit at the same time that man existed. Moreover, if you claim that they supposedly did co-exist with man then that would not be consistent with Paleontology or science, and so your theory that the Bible contains scientific knowledge no longer holds valid. Secondly, in Job one of the beasts that God describes to Job supposedly breaths fire and smoke and flames spew from its nostrils. Clearly, Job is just common mythology of people who still imagined that fire-breathing dragons might exist. Hardly support for anything that science has to say. Also, the writings in the bible refer to the moon like the sun and the stars and speak of it as though it emits light. Science has shown us that this is not true, it simply reflects the light of the sun. There's nothing impressive in the bible at all. If it wasn't for religious fanatics making utterly outrageous and unsupportable claims about these ancient texts they would have been placed on the shelf marked "fiction" right next to Greek Mythology a long time ago. The only thing that keeps them going are the outright lies of religious fanatics. The Bible isn't even consistent with science at all. The world could not have been created in six days, and mankind most certainly did not appear on the 6th day of "creation". So there's really no need to go much further than that. We can toss the whole mythology aside in the very early chapters of the very first fable in the cannon. It's obviously just mythology written by people who had absolutely no clue about how old the universe truly is, or how long it took mankind to evolve on planet Earth. And you're trying to claim that the bible supports scientific knowledge? That's not even a reasonable claim, IMHO. english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. And another just for you. If you truly wanted to know anything along these lines I would suggest searching it for yourself and not having a closed biased mind. www.dinosaur-extinction.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: The bible contains just as much knowledge as we have now. Hogwash. That's simply not true. In fact, if there were any truth to that at all scientists would be extremely impressed by it. But the fact is, there is no truth to that claim whatsoever. The web site you link too starts off with a completely absurdity. It's states that the Bible is consistent with Paleontology by claiming that two so-called "dinosaurs" are supposedly being described in the book of Job. There are several problems with this. First off, God is speaking to Job in the book of Job as though Job should be familiar with the animals he's describing. Yet, if God is supposedly describing dinosaurs, then Job would have no experience with them since they did not exit at the same time that man existed. Moreover, if you claim that they supposedly did co-exist with man then that would not be consistent with Paleontology or science, and so your theory that the Bible contains scientific knowledge no longer holds valid. Secondly, in Job one of the beasts that God describes to Job supposedly breaths fire and smoke and flames spew from its nostrils. Clearly, Job is just common mythology of people who still imagined that fire-breathing dragons might exist. Hardly support for anything that science has to say. Also, the writings in the bible refer to the moon like the sun and the stars and speak of it as though it emits light. Science has shown us that this is not true, it simply reflects the light of the sun. There's nothing impressive in the bible at all. If it wasn't for religious fanatics making utterly outrageous and unsupportable claims about these ancient texts they would have been placed on the shelf marked "fiction" right next to Greek Mythology a long time ago. The only thing that keeps them going are the outright lies of religious fanatics. The Bible isn't even consistent with science at all. The world could not have been created in six days, and mankind most certainly did not appear on the 6th day of "creation". So there's really no need to go much further than that. We can toss the whole mythology aside in the very early chapters of the very first fable in the cannon. It's obviously just mythology written by people who had absolutely no clue about how old the universe truly is, or how long it took mankind to evolve on planet Earth. And you're trying to claim that the bible supports scientific knowledge? That's not even a reasonable claim, IMHO. english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. And another just for you. If you truly wanted to know anything along these lines I would suggest searching it for yourself and not having a closed biased mind. www.dinosaur-extinction.com/ There was recently an Allosaurus bone “Which is alleged to be 140 million year old” but it was carbon dated at only 16 thousand years old. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/04/11 08:34 AM
|
|
see below
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Maybe they still exist and have evolved into intelligent reptilian creatures who eat our children. Also, I've heard that there are holes at the poles that lead to a world that exists inside of the earth. Dinosaurs and reptilian beings live there. Haven't you ever seen that show "journey to the center of the earth?" Not to mention that the devil himself lives there.   |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Maybe they still exist and have evolved into intelligent reptilian creatures who eat our children. Also, I've heard that there are holes at the poles that lead to a world that exists inside of the earth. Dinosaurs and reptilian beings live there. Haven't you ever seen that show "journey to the center of the earth?" Not to mention that the devil himself lives there. No need to belittle anything, we're talking strong scientific evidence here. Not someone's personal thoughts, not someones personal bias, not anything of such. What I have supplied are scientific evidence of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the general consensus is that man did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs but I'm open to the idea that there might have been some humanoids around in a very small number because I believe in aliens.
Aliens are humanoids. I don't think there were large civilizations of humans existing with dinosaurs because that would not make much sense because the dinosaurs would eat all the humans. The aliens destroyed them so they could create Adam and Eve by mixing their advanced DNA with the local primitive primates that were, at the time evolving into "man." Of course these primitive humanoids were considered "animals" by the aliens just as we consider apes to be animals. It would be comparable to humans of today crossing their DNA with apes to create a smarter ape that could be trained to work for nothing in the mines. I think there was a movie made with that plot. Anyway, Adam and Eve were one of the first human/alien cross breeds on the planet. (There were others) A lot of different alien scientific groups were working on the same project around the world. One of them are responsible for the Native American Indian. They were living underground for a long time. The Indians tell a tale of how they came up from their home under the ground where their ancestors had been taken care of by the "ant people." These "ant people" were the alien clones called the "greys." (They do look like ants sort of.) Anyway that's a run down of how humans came to be, and why the dinosaurs were destroyed. (Some of the smaller dinosaurs evolved into birds.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Fri 03/04/11 08:54 AM
|
|
There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Maybe they still exist and have evolved into intelligent reptilian creatures who eat our children. Also, I've heard that there are holes at the poles that lead to a world that exists inside of the earth. Dinosaurs and reptilian beings live there. Haven't you ever seen that show "journey to the center of the earth?" Not to mention that the devil himself lives there. No need to belittle anything, we're talking strong scientific evidence here. Not someone's personal thoughts, not someones personal bias, not anything of such. What I have supplied are scientific evidence of this. Who is belittling? I'm very serious. Ask anyone who knows me. I joke about it because if I get too serious people run away in fear thinking I am just insane. LOL...  I'm perfectly sane, trust me. The devil, by the way, is an alien, of the draconian royalty. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.  The web page you just pointed to requires that mankind existed over 110 million years ago in order to have coexisted with the dinosaurs. You posted a moment ago that supposedly the Bible contains all the knowledge that we already know, but now you're suggesting that our current knowledge is wrong!  That flies directly in the face of your original claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Abracadabra!!
 How's your health? When will you be in shape to go to some tropical island? Or maybe just some resort hotel in Florida where we can sip freshly squeezed orange juice on a beach and watch the idiot wind surfers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No need to belittle anything, we're talking strong scientific evidence here. Not someone's personal thoughts, not someones personal bias, not anything of such. What I have supplied are scientific evidence of this. You haven't supplied "scientific evidence" for anything. All you've done is point to some seriously unscientific websites that distort information in an attempt to support religious fanaticism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Abracadabra!! How's your health? When will you be in shape to go to some tropical island? Or maybe just some resort hotel in Florida where we can sip freshly squeezed orange juice on a beach and watch the idiot wind surfers. Hi Jeannie!  I'm feeling much better since I've discovered the way of the wizard. The tropical island sounds good. I have a sailboat.  All I need now is an ocean.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure I'de get sea sick. I'll watch from the beach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboy wrote: No need to belittle anything, we're talking strong scientific evidence here. Not someone's personal thoughts, not someones personal bias, not anything of such. What I have supplied are scientific evidence of this. You haven't supplied "scientific evidence" for anything. All you've done is point to some seriously unscientific websites that distort information in an attempt to support religious fanaticism. And you've shown nothing scientific about your defense either, so what's your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Fri 03/04/11 09:40 AM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. The web page you just pointed to requires that mankind existed over 110 million years ago in order to have coexisted with the dinosaurs. You posted a moment ago that supposedly the Bible contains all the knowledge that we already know, but now you're suggesting that our current knowledge is wrong! That flies directly in the face of your original claim. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Fri 03/04/11 09:39 AM
|
|
Cowboy wrote: english.pravda.ru/news/business/finance/06-05-2002/42242-0/ There is plenty of evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. The web page you just pointed to requires that mankind existed over 110 million years ago in order to have coexisted with the dinosaurs. You posted a moment ago that supposedly the Bible contains all the knowledge that we already know, but now you're suggesting that our current knowledge is wrong! That flies directly in the face of your original claim. No, the knowledge we know isn't particularly wrong. We just don't have all the knowledge. We've only stumbled across a bit of this knowledge. And as more knowledge is found more knowledge that the bible is accurate. |
|
|
|
|
