Spirituality
03 Dec 09
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou deserve to be slapped. and made to wear a silly pink top hat about half a meter high with the words "robbie carrobie" inscribed on it. for all eternity.
Where do I find the scientific notion of a flood was there? The year was about "placing the Flood around 2250 B.C.", right? Is this scientific?
Then it should be easy to see the effects of the flooding in the Australian deserts, in the plain of middle of USA, traces in the ice cap of Greenland and Antarctica, and, if the whole earth was flooded up to t ...[text shortened]... ice to the fundamentalist creationst, then it is suddenly a good and working method. Funny...
like penquin said i will "Put him(you) out of his misery "
the site i gave is giving proofs regarding the moronity of an universal flood. it uses "proofs" from the bible to beat the creationists at their own game. instead of even mentioning carbon dating (which they and i know is true) which creationists dismiss as being satan's work, they disprove the flood using all manner of evidence. including selfcontradicting passage in the bible.
if you would have actually read my post and not just randomly picking groups of words, you would have seen the argument was kinda like that: "if i were to believe your bible, the flood would be around 2250 BC. which is wrong you stupid creationists since egyptians gave us written records years before that and furthermore the great pyramid was built about 300 years before. ERGO: the flood story is wrong and i hope nobody thinks we are supporting creationism"
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziOkay, creationists defeating creationists. But do they want to agree on this among themselves? Of course not. If I want to get into a battle ground in their own back pocket, then I will lose on some technicality. So I avoid that. Let them fight over this and one creationist will win over another creationist, giving the result that a creationist won (period). No, I don't get into that game of theirs.
you deserve to be slapped. and made to wear a silly pink top hat about half a meter high with the words "robbie carrobie" inscribed on it. for all eternity.
like penquin said i will "Put him(you) out of his misery "
the site i gave is giving proofs regarding the moronity of an universal flood. it uses "proofs" from the bible to beat the creationists a ...[text shortened]... ERGO: the flood story is wrong and i hope nobody thinks we are supporting creationism"
In the ice cap of Greenland the evidence would be there, black on white (literarly) in one of the ice cores where the exact position would be known by the creationists. Is this layer found? No. So was there a global flooding? Again, no. Case closed. Result: The flooding myth is nothing but a myth.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi can't recall when someone other than the carrobie annoyed me this much.
Okay, creationists defeating creationists. But do they want to agree on this among themselves? Of course not. If I want to get into a battle ground in their own back pocket, then I will lose on some technicality. So I avoid that. Let them fight over this and one creationist will win over another creationist, giving the result that a creationist won (perio ...[text shortened]... ere a global flooding? Again, no. Case closed. Result: The flooding myth is nothing but a myth.
listen to me Neo, and listen to me carefuly: "try and realize the truth: there is no spoon"
there are NO creationists on that site. they are scientists. or some dood(s) with a lot of time on his hand to do the research. we don't even know if they are atheists or not which doesn't even matter. they are not, however, creationists. NOT.
they take the flood story and give A LOT of reasons. from different areas. including geology, biolgy, physics, and even philosophy(using bible to prove the bible is illogical, self contradicting.)
there are no creationists on that site. the cake is a lie.
04 Dec 09
You know Robbie, I think we're going about this wrong. These guys are not here to learn and that's obvious. These guys are here to try and put the burden of proof on us and as well as others who know what the Bible says about the flood. But more importantly what the whole earth says about the flood with the fossil record and with the sediment layers one the surface of the earth. Anyone with half a brain can take their time and think and look at the incredible amount of evidence from the earth itself and from humans with the more then 250 societies earthwide that have basically the same legends of the flood in there history.
So the burden of proof is in their court. But they know it is something that they can't disprove so they just ramble on with their simple crooked finger pointing at us. This is a trait by ones that try to deflect the obvious which is their lack of ability to see the evidence.
Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf you say so. If you think *that* is the point, then, please continue. I just follow the topic on this thread.
i can't recall when someone other than the carrobie annoyed me this much.
listen to me Neo, and listen to me carefuly: "try and realize the truth: there is no spoon"
there are NO creationists on that site. they are scientists. or some dood(s) with a lot of time on his hand to do the research. we don't even know if they are atheists or not which doesn't ...[text shortened]... logical, self contradicting.)
there are no creationists on that site. the cake is a lie.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75What are you talking about? The proof is there. In the ice cap of Greenland. If there ever was a global flooding, then the ice itself should have traces of that. It hasn't. Case closed. Proved and ready. A good myth, but still a myth.
You know Robbie, I think we're going about this wrong. These guys are not here to learn and that's obvious. These guys are here to try and put the burden of proof on us and as well as others who know what the Bible says about the flood. But more importantly what the whole earth says about the flood with the fossil record and with the sediment layers one ...[text shortened]... see the evidence.
Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75the sumerian version of the flood say that the euphrates and the tigrus flooded and gilgamesh(correct me if i am wrong) or some dude got washed away. 2 rivers. in mesopotamia. not the whole world. not obliterating the world. so yeah, it's basically the same.
You know Robbie, I think we're going about this wrong. These guys are not here to learn and that's obvious. These guys are here to try and put the burden of proof on us and as well as others who know what the Bible says about the flood. But more importantly what the whole earth says about the flood with the fossil record and with the sediment layers one ...[text shortened]... see the evidence.
Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???
"Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???"
a seed of the polystrate tree goes into the ground and if the conditions are right, it becomes a polystrate tree. what am i suppose to explain about it?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
look at this link. it has creationists in it.
04 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziWeak answer. Explain the trees please. No way they could have just grown there...
the sumerian version of the flood say that the euphrates and the tigrus flooded and gilgamesh(correct me if i am wrong) or some dude got washed away. 2 rivers. in mesopotamia. not the whole world. not obliterating the world. so yeah, it's basically the same.
"Lets see if they can come up with an explination for polystrate trees???"
a seed of the polystr ...[text shortened]... ://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
look at this link. it has creationists in it.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75explain what?
Weak answer. Explain the trees please. No way they could have just grown there...
i am not gonna research everything about them bushes, find out what relates to the flood and debunk that.
be specific.
and i resent your opinion of what constitutes a weak answer. you just said that a lot of people have "basicaly" the same flood story. didn't i just shown you that the sumerian story is NOT basicaly the same.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasi gave you 2 links. my point was to show you the manner in wich creationists argue and how reasonable open minded people argue.
If you say so. If you think *that* is the point, then, please continue. I just follow the topic on this thread.
i wanted to show you how some juggle with half truths, myths and unproven sources while the others use reason and hard fact, facts that more accessible than isotope dating.
i wanted to show you how creationists only have some occurences that "support" roughly the flood while the other doods have so many evidence that they feel comfortable letting out the harder to explain ones like carbon dating and even use the creationists main book of proof to smack them in the head with.
not in a million years would i have thought you would mistake the "sciency" link for the nutjob link and having debated with you for a while now i wouldn't have thought you would post a comment(lacking facts, foundation and logic) on something you haven't read.
similar to me asking you your opinion about the lord of the rings trilogy and you post a bunch of opinions based on the first paragraph in the first book.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf your point doesn't coincide with my point, then we are talking about different things, are we not? If you draw the topic into your direction, and I have no intention to follow you, then you have a problem, not me.
i gave you 2 links. my point was to show you the manner in wich creationists argue and how reasonable open minded people argue.
i wanted to show you how some juggle with half truths, myths and unproven sources while the others use reason and hard fact, facts that more accessible than isotope dating.
i wanted to show you how creationists only have some ...[text shortened]... s trilogy and you post a bunch of opinions based on the first paragraph in the first book.
Fundamentalists can very well believe in the global flooding because it is a part of their religion, that doesn't disturb me much. But when they say that science support the flooding, or that science have no evidence that the flooding never occurred, then they are wrong. And that's the topic I discuss.
robbie, and galvestone, and other pro-flooders just are plain wrong. When are they going to give a comment about the evidence found in the ice cores of Greenland? Never? And why? Because that would disprove their standpoint.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziNo research, why? Afraid of something you can't explain that might prove the flood?
explain what?
i am not gonna research everything about them bushes, find out what relates to the flood and debunk that.
be specific.
and i resent your opinion of what constitutes a weak answer. you just said that a lot of people have "basicaly" the same flood story. didn't i just shown you that the sumerian story is NOT basicaly the same.
04 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75you can't see me but my eye is twitching right now. you are turning into a robbie and that means i will ignore you too.
No research, why? Afraid of something you can't explain that might prove the flood?
you asked me to explain polystrate trees. i explained on aspect proving you your request was too general. your request should have been "explain how aspect X of polystrate trees is as it is without there being a flood" where X is actually mentioned. if it is not i would have to research ALL of the characteristics of them bushes, even the ones that are not related, guess which one of the characteristics you refer to, and then do some research to counter it.
all the benevolence and kindness and willingness to debate you in the world wouldn't be enought for me to do that.