It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Noahs Arc and Dinosaurs???

page: 12
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
not all species, all the KINDS. get ti straight, it was the different kinds, not all the different species. dinos? he didnt have to bring the biggest ones.
and no you didnt give the only obvious answer. you still didnt answer my question about the layers being differeny ages if a landslide or a mudslide caused the trees to become stuck in that position, then why are there different layers around that tree?

Simple. Rock layers formed AROUND it.
I honestly can't be bothered going to immence detail because your argument is flawed as it's based on scientific ignorance. If I DID go into greater detail you would just dismiss it and change topics much like your 'wife' use to do.. this would only cause me frustration as you repeatively do this.. expecting other people to expend energy and time answering your arguments and then when you are PROVEN wrong you don't admit it.. you just move of to the next cut n paste creationalist argument on the list. What about that 'giant thigh bone'? turned out it's made of plasta.. not unexpected but of course it has no original bone to go with it.. why? Because it was a sculpture not a cast of fossil.

Now.. how about proving the meteor thing?




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   


Simple. Rock layers formed AROUND it.


but you say that the rock layers are different ages. why?



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Ec,
Read carefully:

I am not your teacher.

There is no point answering this as your predictable response will be 'But how were they dated?' Of course that will lead to you questioning the credibility of dating methods with the old carbon dating question which I'm sure has been answered a hundred times before. Did you PROVE the meteorite thing? No. You ripped of the argument from creationalist sites [along with ALL your other arguments] and it's actually false information. Did you prove the thigh bone? No.. you know it's a fake so will just ignore that request. Did you prove the sun shrinking? NO.. you posted links to creationalist sites as proof [which are NOT science sites].

This forum is about the conspiracy to sodomize science.. YOU are one of the conspirators.. and seem OBSESSED with spreading their propaganda.. much like your supposed 'wife' [bluetooth/Expert666]. You repetively have requested people to explain things to you.. and now you are doing it again despite already being told the same answers a thousand times.. and then ignore requests to prove things yourself.

Do you think posting the same arguments is going to change the REAL facts? It won't. You could [hypathetically] convince every person on the planet that it's only 6000 years old but all that will do would create is a planet full of deluded people.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   


There is no point answering this as your predictable response will be 'But how were they dated?' Of course that will lead to you questioning the credibility of dating methods with the old carbon dating question which I'm sure has been answered a hundred times before. Did you PROVE the meteorite thing? No. You ripped of the argument from creationalist sites [along with ALL your other arguments] and it's actually false information. Did you prove the thigh bone? No.. you know it's a fake so will just ignore that request. Did you prove the sun shrinking? NO.. you posted links to creationalist sites as proof [which are NOT science sites].


dude I am really trying to learn something here. im trying to put forth an argument and you are supposed to correct me and say this is how it works and this is why. but whenever I point out that something is wrong, and I give you a reference along with it, all you say is " its false becuase its a creationists site and its not true." why the prejudice? why are all creationists wrong automatically? why am I automatically wrong, just because I am a creationist?

there is a lot of facts out there, and there are also some interpretations out there as well. some of those interpretations are wrong and some of them are right. some are partially wrong and some are partially right.

the evolutionists interpretation of grand canyon is not supported by the facts of grand canyon.
the creationists interpretation is very much supported by the facts of grandcanyon. if you want the facts on grand canyon and the interpretations, let me know and ill explain via email, if you like.

the facts about the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere and the earths magnetic field limit the age of the earth to a miximum of 30,000 years. if you want, just email me about that too.

the facts about the sun limit the age of our solar system, the facts about the rotation of the earth limits the age of the earth.

the rate at which the moon receeds from the earth limits the time that which certain organisms could have lived.

ill give them all to you if you want, and the only reason I change the subject is becuase I try to answer parts of your rebuttle and get side tracked, if you like, lets talk about on topic at a time and you will get your answer.




EC



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
your ideas are based on your own assumptions and not fact. somewhere on this board there is a topic called 'the anti christian conspiracy'...yet on this one we have someone's name as 'evolution cruncher'...why don't i change my name to 'jesus hater', or 'christian ball breaker', or 'i hate god' or something else anti religious. if there's anything that's anti something, its evolution cruncher.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   


your ideas are based on your own assumptions and not fact. somewhere on this board there is a topic called 'the anti christian conspiracy'...yet on this one we have someone's name as 'evolution cruncher'...why don't i change my name to 'jesus hater', or 'christian ball breaker', or 'i hate god' or something else anti religious. if there's anything that's anti something, its evolution cruncher.


dude, you are saying that my beliefs are based on assumption, well in your book thats ok as long as I believe in what you believe.
evolution is based on the assumption that bacteria evolved into everything we see today over millions of years. that has never been observed or demonstrated, im sure its been tested but the results have been negative.
biological evolution (except for micro evolution) has never been scientific, and that is a fact. it may be a study, but thats doesnt make it science. read what you write and quit contradicting yourself. it is assumed to happen, therefore evolution is based on many assumptions as well..


EC



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
dude I am really trying to learn something here.

If that were true you would accept that koalas can't swim hundred of thousands of miles to get to Noah.

im trying to put forth an argument and you are supposed to correct me and say this is how it works and this is why.

I'm not suppose to do anything.. but I have been good enough to answer your questions with facts which you ALWAYS ignore if they conflict with the bible... and that is most facts.

but whenever I point out that something is wrong, and I give you a reference along with it, all you say is " its false becuase its a creationists site and its not true." why the prejudice? why are all creationists wrong automatically? why am I automatically wrong, just because I am a creationist?

Because you keep posting total bs. Creationalism is not a 'different' type of science because it is NOT a science.

there is a lot of facts out there, and there are also some interpretations out there as well. some of those interpretations are wrong and some of them are right. some are partially wrong and some are partially right.

No. The bible relies on interpritation. Scientific facts can't be changed to suit [the bible]. Evolution is not an 'interpritation'.. the theory [as in scientific] is based on the COLLECTIVE facts of science and they all point to evolution. Creational 'science' has to ommit most facts to make it fit.. and outright change facts when it doesn't.

the evolutionists interpretation of grand canyon is not supported by the facts of grand canyon.
the creationists interpretation is very much supported by the facts of grandcanyon. if you want the facts on grand canyon and the interpretations, let me know and ill explain via email, if you like.

I've read the facts of the grand canyon.. it was not caused by 'the flood'. If you want to post 'the facts' by all means do so.. I'm sure when put against the REAL facts it will be good for a laugh.

the facts about the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere and the earths magnetic field limit the age of the earth to a miximum of 30,000 years. if you want, just email me about that too.

MORE cut and paste? Ready made answers for outdated questions:

The following material has been taken from a sheet entitled Several Faulty Assumptions Are Used in all Radiometric Dating Methods. Carbon 14 is used for this example:, which was put out by Dr. Hovind.

Dr. Hovind (R1): The atmospheric C-14 is presently only 1/3 of the way to an equilibrium value which will be reached in 30,000 years. This nullifies the carbon-14 method as well as demonstrating that the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
R1. The above is offered as a simple fact of research. Knowing how faulty creationist "facts" can be, let's do a little research of our own. One suspects that the scientific world would not be using the carbon-14 method if it were so obviously flawed. Could it be that the whole scientific community has missed this point, or is it another case of creationist daydreaming?

This argument was popularized by Henry Morris (1974, p.164), who used some calculations done in 1968 by Melvin Cook to get the 10,000-year figure. In 1968 another creationist, Robert L. Whitelaw, using a greater ratio of carbon-14 production to decay, concluded that only 5000 years passed since carbon-14 started forming in the atmosphere!

www.talkorigins.org...
Read the article if you really want to 'learn'. Seems this argument was discredited long ago.

the facts about the sun limit the age of our solar system, the facts about the rotation of the earth limits the age of the earth.

Wrong.. the sun apparently fluctuates in size.. there is no reason to assume these slight fluctuations are not just the sun's own cycles.

the rate at which the moon receeds from the earth limits the time that which certain organisms could have lived.

This arguments has been bled dry before.. all thats left is ashes:

Feedback Letter
Comment: Dear Sirs; I have heard that the moon is slowly moving away from the earth at 4cm per year. This rate was probably higher in the past. Thus the moon could not have been orbiting the earth for 4.5 billion years. How is this explained?
Thank you for your response. Michael Anderson

Response
From: Tim Thompson
Author of: Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field
Response: The moon currently recedes from Earth at a rate of 3.82±0.07 cm/year, according to Lunar laser ranging measurements (Dickey et al., 1994). The current average Earth-moon distance is 384,400 km. Extrapolated backwards over 4.5 billion years, the rate of 3.82 cm/yr would put the moon 212,500 km from Earth. In order to be physically unacceptable, the moon has to be within the Roche limit of 2.97 Earth radii (Stacey, 1977), or about 18,920 km.
The moon recedes from Earth because of the tidal interaction between them, and we do know that it must have been stronger (and the rate of recession faster) in the distant past. According to creationist arguments, the physics of this tidal interaction is incompatible with an evolutionary (i.e, 4.5 billion year old) Earth-moon system. But the creationist arguments invariably use the wrong physics to describe the tidal interaction, and therefore lead to spurious conclusions.

For the rest of the letter:
www.talkorigins.org...

and the only reason I change the subject is becuase I try to answer parts of your rebuttle and get side tracked, if you like, lets talk about on topic at a time and you will get your answer. EC

I eagerly await your proving the existence of a giant's thigh bone.. [not just the plasta or a creationalist assurence that they tested it themselves.. they would have sculpted it themselves] from a non biased credible source. I also look forward to you providing proof of koala fossils and kangaroos found in the middle east.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
evolution is based on the assumption that bacteria evolved into everything we see today over millions of years.
EC


surely creationism is based on the 'assumption' that adam and eve were the first two humans, and the 'assumption' that god created everything. we haven't found their bodies, or bones, so there's no factual evidence to show this is anything but a myth. there is more evidence to support evolution than supports the creationist's theory. there have been thousands of bones dug up that support the idea of evolution, what has been dug up that supports the creationist theory...nada.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
there have been thousands of bones dug up that support the idea of evolution, what has been dug up that supports the creationist theory...nada.



Could you please list these bones.

The ones I have heard of have been found out to later be false. Nebraska man a fake, piltdown man a fake, Neanderthal man a fake, Lucy a fake. There have been no bones nor transitional animals found that give authenticity to evolution.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Could you please list these bones.


Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo sapiens (archaic)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens (modern)

i could put explanations of each species and a picture of fossils and skulls. you wanted a list of bones that had been dug up...there it is.



The ones I have heard of have been found out to later be false. Nebraska man a fake, piltdown man a fake, Neanderthal man a fake, Lucy a fake. There have been no bones nor transitional animals found that give authenticity to evolution.


oh right because you say they're all fake we're supposed to take your word for it?


also those species you say were hoaxed or fake were mostly discovered almost 100 years ago. however, i find it hard to believe that all those above in my list were hoaxes.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by shaunybaby]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Neanderthal man a fake, Lucy a fake

When were these proven fake?! [source please..]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Why do other people's faiths seem to make so many of you angry? Ignorance isn't an illness, it's an absence of data.

No global flood? No, but the melting ice caps brought us pretty close. Bear in mind that a map of the earth during the ice age would have given cartographers a lot more work, had there been any around. But there weren't. Possibly a few basic hominids would have been about the extent of it. Land masses were larger because most of the sea was trapped in ice. Animals would have been freer to roam over the earth because the earth had so much more land to roam on. The mystical aspects of Atlantis and Mu and the other one I forget the name of are pretty and exotic but they distract most people from the fact that lower water levels have far-reaching effects on the topography of a planet.

It's a lovely idea that a flood would cover the earth and wipe out all unprotected life, but that wasn't how the dinosaurs died. Even if it wasn't an asteroid and decades of winter climates, depleting food supplies all the way up the food chain, it was something pretty cataclysmic, but not water-born. At 65 million years ago, there is no evidence for that. There is, however, evidence for an overwhelming atmospheric change, and that is something that smaller mammals, birds and reptiles might survive - they don't eat as much as the larger animals.

But there is evidence for "great deluges" in fossil records dating anywhere between 40,000 and 150 million years ago, so it must have happened quite a lot - how many ice ages and polar shifts have there been in that time scale? And if you have a primative brain that only ever had to worry about survival and procreation before, that's just the sort of thing that might stick in your memory and get retold over camp fires and exaggerated until it becomes the story of the Ark.

There are reasons for most things and whether those reasons are God-given or merely scientific, there's no need to insult people for preferring one over the other.

Be kind, be good, be considerate - behave



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
how do you know that there has ever been a polar shift?

EC



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
how do you know that there has ever been a polar shift?

Magnetic evidence from sea-floor spreading. It indicates that it rather constantly changes.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
so what you are saying, is that if I go down to the ocean floor, with a north seeking compass and come near one of those rocks that have reversed polarity, its going to point the other way?

no there are no polar reversals in the ocean floor,

when the graph was sketched out someone drew the line through all of the readings. making it look like anything below the line was reversed. that is simply not true. there are only signs of stronger and weaker magnetic strength, not reversals.

if you know somethiing about magnets and how they can lose strength due to heat\, you would know a little something about the ocean floor.
first, its near the oceanic ridge, where some kind of extreme event might have taken place that allowed very very hott water to eject from the ridge. sometime in the past this probably took place.

are these reversals found anywhere else in the world?

EC



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:46 PM
link   
There is much evidence in celtic and britian's prehistorical history, as told through their manuscripts that speak of the such beings being on the earth in the time of man.

Why are they no longer here?

They were in the decline as humanity moved across Europe, the last remnants of the huges numbers killed in the flood, as man moved in they either moved on or were killed.

I don't bother getting into these arguments any more, as i find too many closed minds and debates that are merely shouting at each other without any real understanding present (I have ben here a loooong time). However I have some facinating manuscript translations links here.

These were accepted facts until recently with the domination of science relegating them to mere "stories".

Here is an account from here

Moreover, 'dinosaurs', in the form of flying reptiles, were a feature of Welsh life until surprisingly recent times. As late as the beginning of the present century, elderly folk at Penllin in Glamorgan used to tell of a colony of winged serpents that lived in the woods around Penllin Castle.

As Marie Trevelyan tells us:


'The woods around Penllin Castle, Glamorgan, had the reputation of being frequented by winged serpents, and these were the terror of old and young alike.

An aged inhabitant of Penllyne, who died a few years ago, said that in his boyhood the winged serpents were described as very beautiful. They were coiled when in repose, and "looked as if they were covered with jewels of all sorts. Some of them had crests sparkling with all the colours of the rainbow".

When disturbed they glided swiftly, "sparkling all over," to their hiding places. When angry, they "flew over people's heads, with outspread wings, bright, and sometimes with eyes too, like the feathers in a peacock's tail". He said it was "no old story invented to frighten children", but a real fact. His father and uncle had killed some of them, for they were as bad as foxes for poultry.

The old man attributed the extinction of the winged serpents to the fact that they were "terrors in the farmyards and coverts".)


This account is intriguing in many respects, not the least being the fact that it is not a typical account of dragons. The creatures concerned were not solitary and monstrous beasts, but small creatures that lived in colonies. Not at all like the larger species of winged reptile that used to nest upon an ancient burial-mound, or tumulus, at Trellech-a'r-Betws in the county of Dyfed, for example. But whilst we are in Wales, it is worth noting that at Llanbardan-y-Garrag (is Garrag a corruption of carrog?), the church contains a carving of a local giant reptile whose features include large paddle-like flippers, a long neck and a small head. Glaslyn, in Snowdon, is a lake where an afanc was sighted as recently as the 1930s.

On this occasion two climbers on the side of a mountain looked down onto the surface of Glaslyn and they saw the creature, which they described as having a long grey body, rise from the depths of the lake to the surface, raise its head and then submerge again.

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

there are many more accounts in this book, and here

from the very famous Beowulf saga of beowulf killing a young Tyranasaurus rex.......

Grendel, however, is also described, in line 2079 of the poem, as a mutbbona, i.e. one who slays with his mouth or jaws, and the speed with which he was able to devour his human prey tells us something of the size of his jaws and teeth (he swallowed the body of one of his victims in large 'gobbets').

Yet, it is the very size of Grendel's jaws which paradoxically would have aided Beowulf in his carefully thought out strategy of going for the forelimbs, because pushing himself hard into the animals chest between those forelimbs would have placed Beowulf tightly underneath those jaws and would thus have sheltered him from Grendel's terrible teeth.

We are told that as soon as Beowulf gripped the monsters claws (and we must remember that Grendel was only a youngster, and not by all accounts a fully mature adult male of his species), the startled animal tried to pull away instead of attacking Beowulf.

The animal instinctively knew the danger he was now in and he wanted to escape the clutches of the man who now posed such an unexpected threat and who was inflicting such alarming pain. However, it was this action of trying to pull away that left Grendel wide open to Beowulf's strategy.

Thus, Beowulf was able in the ensuing struggle eventually to wrench off one of the animal's arms as so graphically described in the poem. As a result of this appalling injury, the young Grendel returned to his lair and simply bled to death.


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

Later there is the story of how he killed another by hiding in a hole and as the monster passed over the hole he stabbed it through its exposed underbelly.

The information is all there, if only the scientific mind wasn't so closed.


[edit on 19-8-2005 by Netchicken]

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
so what you are saying, is that if I go down to the ocean floor, with a north seeking compass and come near one of those rocks that have reversed polarity, its going to point the other way?


A compass points to magnetic north, always. A rock that has reversed polarity has minerals that when solidified are being pulled the other way by the magnetic field.



if you know somethiing about magnets and how they can lose strength due to heat\, you would know a little something about the ocean floor.
first, its near the oceanic ridge, where some kind of extreme event might have taken place that allowed very very hott water to eject from the ridge. sometime in the past this probably took place.

are these reversals found anywhere else in the world?
EC

Well, magnetite is found in metamorphic rocks as well as igneous. THe ocean floor is ultramafic igneous rock known as peridotite (unless you have a fault that allow water to enter causing a chemical metamorphis into serpentinite). Metamorphic rocks are igneous or sedimentary rocks that are put through intense heat and pressure, much much more than that found at an ocean ridge I assure you. Magnetite is still very magnetic, even after all the heat it is put through.

By looking at magnetite crystals in rocks we can determine the pull on the mineral and determine the directional pull on the magnetite. I imagine one reason why the ocean floor would one of the best places to look is because it is like a timeline going from yougest to oldest as it spreads. Minerals in ice cores are also are a strong indication of the polar direction as well as lava flows.

Heres a new scientist article that is an interesting read on it.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   


If that were true you would accept that koalas can't swim hundred of thousands of miles to get to Noah.


well in case you dont know, if you drained the oceans a little bit, all of the continents would be connected. it appears that the continents are not connected by land but are connected by water. it is entirely possible for koalas to have traveled many miles to get on noahs arc.




I've read the facts of the grand canyon.. it was not caused by 'the flood'. If you want to post 'the facts' by all means do so.. I'm sure when put against the REAL facts it will be good for a laugh.


so you would know that its geophysically impossible for the Colorado river to have formed grand canyon over millions of years.




Wrong.. the sun apparently fluctuates in size.. there is no reason to assume these slight fluctuations are not just the sun's own cycles.


oh yes you are right about that, the sun does have fluctuations, however, the sun is losing mass as well. the overall graphed out data shows that the sun is shrinking. its losing 1/10% per century.




This arguments has been bled dry before.. all thats left is ashes:


are you so sure about that? the moon proves that the earth was created. the moon proves that life could not have evolved from non-living matter.




I eagerly await your proving the existence of a giant's thigh bone.. [not just the plasta or a creationalist assurence that they tested it themselves.. they would have sculpted it themselves] from a non biased credible source. I also look forward to you providing proof of koala fossils and kangaroos found in the middle east.


ok, you should know that most fossils are found in groups. a flood probably wouldnt spread everything out to be evenly distributed around the world.
and as far as I know, copies of bones are not made out ofo the same material as the original. its common sense to have material that would last for a while.




surely creationism is based on the 'assumption' that adam and eve were the first two humans, and the 'assumption' that god created everything. we haven't found their bodies, or bones, so there's no factual evidence to show this is anything but a myth. there is more evidence to support evolution than supports the creationist's theory. there have been thousands of bones dug up that support the idea of evolution, what has been dug up that supports the creationist theory...nada.


evolution is 'assumes' that every living thing on earth today came from organic soup and evolved into everything we see today. that is assumed. it is also 'assumed' that one kind of animal can evolve into a different kind of animal if given enough time. that is another assumption still awaiting proof, or awaiting observation.
bones in the dirt dont prove a thing. the only thing you can prove is that it died. thats all.



Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo sapiens (archaic)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens (modern)
i could put explanations of each species and a picture of fossils and skulls. you wanted a list of bones that had been dug up...there it is.

so why didnt you, if you have so much proof that its undeniable, you would have given the picture as well as an explanation.
even though you know that these have all been proven to be either fake, hoax, misinterpretation, or selected facts.

neanderthal was people with arthritis. lucy was a fake. no feet were found, yet they put feet on the displays in museums. lucy's knee was found over 1 mile away in different rock layers. (which are supposed to be different layers)



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Accutually we know evolution happpens thats why you need a new flu vacine every year because the flu virus changes. Changes of an entire species = evolution. Thats micro evolution. Many say that macro evolution, evolution of multi celled organisms like humans, doesnt exist and has never been observed which is also false. During the industrial revolution a normally white moth turned black to camoflauge with soot covered buildings. So in rural areas there was a white moth but in urban areas it was black, so one type of moth turned into two. SO lets say that in a few of these urban areas there was a change in evironment such as it getting slowly colder the moths would slowly change to fit their environment and now youd have a moth that was very simmiliar to it relatives the white and black ones but it wouldnt be the same. If many of these changes built up you would infact end up with different animals.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   
not quite sure what that has to do with noah's ark and dinosaurs
...but a valid point for evolution and something all creationists need to hear.

i believe that if a person, who really thinks noah's ark literally happened word for word, is not intelligent. sure it's my oppinion, but if i state something, yet without having any rational explanation or proof, then it makes it an unintelligent statement. just like noah's ark is an unintelligent statement. if there was 'proof' that noah's ark really happened, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. if there was actual 'proof' that christianity was the true religion then everyone would be a part of it, yet we are not. sure you could say well if evolution were correct then everyone would believe in that...one big difference, evolution has been around for about 150 years, and since then numbers of evolutionists has dramatically increased.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join