Noahs Arc and Dinosaurs???

putting forth the best one that is supoorted by the evidence.

ok show me the evidence of the big bang. as for evidence of God. try reading the bible sometime, and you will see countless stories and prophicies that are true. i find that easier to belive that everything there is in the universe, including life on earth came from a bang. can't you see that there has to be a desigener for all of the life on earth? let me include an analogy....say u have a watch, or a car. you know it is there, but where is the designer? you know there has to be a designer.

You accept that God came of nothing

no, i know that God has always been. He is not subject to time. time for Him does not exist. although it can be tough to understand, that is what i believe.

John 1:3 "ll things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

to add to what Josh said, God is not limited by Time, Space of Matter, so that means that God cannot be overcome by time space or matter, which also means that he can be outside, beyond, in, throughout, ect, time, space and matter.

basically God is not limited by anything, he can exist anywhere, any time, anyhow.
he can be in yesterday and he can be in tomorrow. that doesnt sound possible, but nothing can effect God. that is how God existed before time space and matter. God did not use a big bang to make everything, he doesnt need to use the big bang because he can create everything out of nothing the first time. he can speak anything into existance.

one person asked me one time "what if you are wrong about God and we are all here by chance and not by an intelligent designer?" and I simply answered his question with this question; "what if you are wrong and I am right?"
he didnt know what to say, but basically if God exists then the evolutionists and everyone else that does not believe in Gods son, Jesus, are not going to heaven. now if evolution is true and we came from nothing, I have nothing to lose. and neither does anyone else. think about that, if I am right, the non-believers are not going to heaven, they are gong to hell. if the non-believers are right, I have nothing to lose. yeah I might have wasted my time believing in something that wasnt real, but hey, it wont matter after im dead. and im going to be dead for a long time. and so is everyone else. no matter how long you live, you will be dead longer than that.

Evolution is a religion, death is a good thing, that is how things get ahead or get better according to darwin. no evolution has ever been observed except for micro evolution, we do not know if it leads to Macro, it is assumed that it does. but its not scientific

science is - knowledge gained by observations, testing, experimenting, demonstrating, ect.

Micro Evolution is the only type of evolution that fits the definition of science. all others do not.
that is why us christians call evolution a religion because you have to have faith in that theory, you cant prove it, you have to believe that with time, evolution can occur.

in response to the austrialia question. the animals living in australia today were probably at the front of the migration flock that left Noah's ark. as you probably know koalas are not very aggressive animals, so when other animals came to occupy their space, say in Asia, as a result, they kept migrating south.

the water levels were much different after the flood, and if there were polar ice caps, whcih i believe there were, then some of the water in our oceans today were from those ice caps. this would mean some of the land covered today by water, was availible for the animals that live in australia to walk across. here is a great picture of the sea floor in the pacific. if shows the different depths of the land, and the continental shelves. here is another map, which shows asia mostly, but also shows the depth of the water in meters. australia would be in the bottom right corner if you kept going with the map. this shows that the animals could have easily migrated after the flood waters started to go down, and before the ice caps started to melt.

The Bible tells us that God brought the animals to Noah before the flood. God caused the animals to walk to the ark. Noah didn't have to take out any time to go and find the animals. God took care of that part, because it was a big deal to Him to have all the kinds on the ark.

Now if God thought it was important enough to put within the animals the sense that they needed to go to where the ark was, then it reasons that after the flood when the animals were let off the ark that God also took the animals to where He wanted them to go. He caused them to walk and go where He wanted them.

Originally posted by Joshm2u

ok show me the evidence of the big bang. as for evidence of God. try reading the bible sometime, and you will see countless stories and prophicies that are true..

Please stop using the Bible as proof of God, which it is not. It was written by man for man.

Im sure there are far more prophecies that aren't true than true in the Bible. Science is based on predictions. If I observe something and find out why it happens, I can predict how and when it will happen again. Unless there is an unknown, or human error, scientific predictions will be 100% accurate.

How about you show me some evidence for creation? I'm not even saying the Big Bang is true, just alot more plausible than creation.

can't you see that there has to be a desigener for all of the life on earth? let me include an analogy....say u have a watch, or a car. you know it is there, but where is the designer? you know there has to be a designer.

I know there has to be a desginer? So what if man has desgined stuff, that doesn't count as proof.

no, i know that God has always been. He is not subject to time. time for Him does not exist. although it can be tough to understand, that is what i believe.

It is so hard for you to accept that matter and energy have always been, but accept God just like that. Why couldn't matter and energy have always just been? Or for that matter, who is God's designer?

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
how can something expand that doesnt exist?

I'll let you read up on The Big Bang:

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe

Source

if I proved to you that God existed and the bible was true, would you change your lifestyle?

Yes. of course.

well what determined that it was necessary? I thinks its necessary to have wings so I can fly, but I havent grown wings yet.

It was necessary because it was best for survival. Your second satement completely confuses me, and makes me think you didnt understand my point at all.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Charlie Murphy]

Originally posted by Joshm2u
in response to the austrialia question. the animals living in australia today were probably at the front of the migration flock that left Noah's ark.

Did they drag the gum trees behind them?

as you probably know koalas are not very aggressive animals,

Actually they can be. How can you talk about the nature of koalas when you are obviously completely ignorant about them?

so when other animals came to occupy their space, say in Asia, as a result, they kept migrating south.

Do you even know what native means? Koalas never existed in Asia.

the water levels were much different after the flood, and if there were polar ice caps, whcih i believe there were, then some of the water in our oceans today were from those ice caps. this would mean some of the land covered today by water, was availible for the animals that live in australia to walk across.

You are refferring to the last ice age.. from what I remember that was about 40-60 thousand years ago.. not 6000.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

This still doesn't account why australia does not get a mention in the bible.. or why aborigines did not believe in god.. and why they have no record of Noah.

if you look in the bible, especially with moses, the people saw that God was there with them and yet decided to build a golden calf and worship it. that doesnt make a lot of sense now does it?
you are making the assumption that they existed before noah did.

It is not an assumption. It is proven fact.

do they have a legend of the golden age?, cuz almost all cultures do.

Almost all cultures have had contact with eachother.. Aborigines didn't.. and no they never had a 'golden age'.

noah didnt rescue every animal, he rescued two of every KIND of animal.

None of which remotely resemble the kind of biology of the Koala. Incidently.. how to account for the existence of the platypus then? They are native to Australia as well.. there is no "but they look like something else." [eg. koalas and bears are the same 'kind' ] to account for their existence biblically speaking as they are unique.

and how did they date those rocks they found that dinosaur in?

'That' dinosaur? More than one.. and most rocks take alot longer than 5000 years to form.. and the dating methods would be numerous. You didn't answer my question.. how does a dinsoaur become imbedded inside ten feet of rock from 5000 years ago? You obviously know nothing of geology.

How did dinosaurs end up inside rocks that are millions of years old if they were rescued by Noah 6000 years ago? Did he travel back in time before humans even existed?

the bible says that God made everything in SIX days, that would include dinosaurs.

The bible does not answer this question.
Human beings have not been found along side [or inside] dinosaurs inside rocks.
A 'day' does not exist without daylight.. and day does not start without dawn which is created by the planet turning and dependent on the sun already existing. There is so many things wrong with your mindset I don't know where to start.. safe to say there'd be know point mentioning all of them because you seem immune to the concept of basic logic and will dismiss all fact [biological, geological etc. etc.] that conflict with the mythology you like too believe in.

[edit on 31-7-2005 by riley]

The Bible tells us that God brought the animals to Noah before the flood. God caused the animals to walk to the ark. Noah didn't have to take out any time to go and find the animals. God took care of that part, because it was a big deal to Him to have all the kinds on the ark.

in addition to this post. remember that animals had to reason to fear man, because animals were not hunted by man nor did animal eat other animals before the flood.

Originally posted by riley
Did they drag the gum trees behind them?

Did you ever think that the gum trees germintaed in what is now australia today, after the flood?

Originally posted by riley
Actually they can be. How can you talk about the nature of koalas when you are obviously completely ignorant about them?

yes i do know that they can be agressive, along with almost all animals, but i mean they sleep up to 19 hours a day. how agressive can an animal be while its sleeping? and some animals arent as agressive as others. take a lion and a dove for example. a 4 year old could tell you which one is more agressive.

Originally posted by riley
Do you even know what native means? Koalas never existed in Asia.

they might not have lived there, but they might have migrated through asia on their way to australia. did you ever think of that? and yes, i know what native means. try opening your mind to new possibilities.

Originally posted by riley
You are refferring to the last ice age.. from what I remember that was about 40-60 thousand years ago.. not 6000.

where is the proof that it was 40-60 thoooousand years ago? i would really like to know. and how do you know that there wasnt one around 4400 BC? thats the thing about evolutionists, everything is circa thousands and thousands of years, or millions and millions of years. time is not the answer to everything. but what do u think about the contintental shelves riley? maybe it could work...its just a theory. how do you think the animals of australia got there? i would like yo see how you think they got there.

where is the proof that it was 40-60 thoooousand years ago? i would really like to know. and how do you know that there wasnt one around 4400 BC?

and before you even try to use "annual ice rings" as an argument, those rings are not annual. the during WWII there was a group of planes that got lost up in greenland, they got lost and crash landed up there. the people survived but they left the planes there.

in July of 1992 they went up there and melted down to the planes, they found them by using ground penetrating radar. the planes were 268 feet below the surface.

so they melted down to get the planes, and melted through hundreds of layers of ice.here is a site to explain how ice does not take long to form that way.

actually just google "the lost squadron and the ice layers" and you should be able to find a lot of sites on that and articles.

EC

I haven't got a clue what your on about.. do not presume to tell me what I intend to argue.. unlike you I actually use my own brain to formulate arguments and don't just rip ready made arguments off evangelistic sites.

Seems you were all ammod up with this rebuttle.. can't you think for yourself? I suspect you didn't even know about the ice layer issue yourself until you started speculating about what my next argument might be.

no Riley,

the ice layer argument is what I always get when its brought up. I was just putting it out there before anyone tried to use it.
I didnt know you were going to use it.
I meant no offense.


EC

Originally posted by Joshm2u

Originally posted by riley
Did they drag the gum trees behind them?

Did you ever think that the gum trees germintaed in what is now australia today, after the flood?

:shk:
No. You obviously know nothing of botany either.

Gum trees are native to Australia.
Koalas are native to Australia.
Gum leaves are the koalas entire diet.. they would die without it. How did Noah feed them? They'd die if they ate anything else.

yes i do know that they can be agressive,

Clearly you didn't.

along with almost all animals, but i mean they sleep up to 19 hours a day.

Want to know why..? Gum leaves. They act as a sedative.. they spend most of their time stoned off their heads.

how agressive can an animal be while its sleeping?

If you climbed up a tree and tried to pick one up.. you would definently regret it. Wild koalas aren't like then ones you see on the tourist commercials.

and some animals arent as agressive as others. take a lion and a dove for example. a 4 year old could tell you which one is more agressive.

What does their aggression have to do with Noah? and while we're on the subject and you admit lions are aggressive.. was Noah a lion/crocodile/dinosaur tamer? How do you train these things not to kill when it's in their nature and how they feed themselves?

they might not have lived there, but they might have migrated through asia on their way to australia. did you ever think of that?

No I didn't.. it defies common sense. How does an animal that sleeps most of the day.. 'not live' in a country it's migrating through? It would take 100 generations for them to do that [and thats ignoring how they crosses an ocean].

Originally posted by riley
You are refferring to the last ice age.. from what I remember that was about 40-60 thousand years ago.. not 6000.

where is the proof that it was 40-60 thoooousand years ago? i would really like to know. and how do you know that there wasnt one around 4400 BC?

Doubtful. If you realy wanted to know you would google REAL science sites and find out for yourself. Try the word 'ice age' and 'dinosaur'.. of course you'll sift through them till you find a site that tells you what you want to hear. There is absolutley no archeaogical or gealogical evidence for the bible's version of things.. however there is a wealth of evidence supporting an 'old' earth and a flood 40-40k ago.

thats the thing about evolutionists, everything is circa thousands and thousands of years, or millions and millions of years. time is not the answer to everything.

Time is how long it takes.. sorry if this upsets you.

but what do u think about the contintental shelves riley?

Yes.. a couple of billion years ago there was an island continent which is known as Pangea.. it slowly broke up which is why we have so much biological diversity [from varying enviroments]. If you are suggesting that they slid 'quickly' into their current positions.. no. The result would probably be tidal waves that would wipe everything out, earthquakes, volcanoes and an unbreathable atmosphere. The tectonic plates would not withstand such extremes of being torn apart.. that and fast moving plates [as in from 5k ago] would be impossible.

how do you think the animals of australia got there? i would like yo see how you think they got there.

They evolved from other species.

Thats okay EC.. I just read it in a different context. Thanks for explaining.
We've already got enough unresolved issues/arguments to deal with though. One at a time.. otherwise we just jump from one thing to another and end up covering the same subjects again because they never got resolved which is VERY frustrating as it means posting the same arguments repetitively. It's a little difficult trying to answer one argument when someone throws in a whole other issue to think about.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by Joshm2u
some galaxies spinning clockwise, and other counterclockwise??

Hovind's 'preservation of momentum' argument is meaningless. Its in large part based on a misunderstanding of what the big bang is. Actually, in hovind's case, he's probably simply never researched inflation theory and is only going on the 'big bang' title for his understanding of it. There is nothing in inflation theory that says that galaxies all have to be spinning the same way.

here is a great picture of the sea floor in the pacific.

There is no evidence that there was a continuous land path from whereever noah's ark could've been to every other continent on the planet, which is what is needed to get animals and plants from the ark to where they are.

Did you ever think that the gum trees germintaed in what is now australia today, after the flood?

And just australia? The seeds magically slew out of the ark across the world and landed in australia, just in time for the animals that depend on them to eat them? And what did these animals do in the long journey from the ark to their new homes or even on the original journey to the ark??

has anyone every seen a star form? we have seen them explode, but never form. interesting

You are unfamiliar with the observed stellar nebulae??

its much simplier to say that God created the earth

Thats a completely ridiculous application of occams idea. Any if anything, according to the razor, god is superfuluous and uncessary and therefore nonexistant, because science doesn't need to invoke god to explain anything. These things can already been explained, and adding god to it all is unnecessary. By your own misapplication of the logic, god does not exist.

That is why science can't answer questions about god and why answers that invoke god can't be mixed in with science, the two systems are completely seperate, one natural, the other supernatural. If you try to apply rational and logical scientific thinking to god, then you have to eliminate god, for reasons just like the above.

Evolution Crunchet
but that doesnt explain why there are opposite orbits around the same planet or star.

Here is a page that explains the 'nebular' origin of the Sol System. It doesn't require that everythin be revolving around the sun in the same direction. Objects can get captured from outside of the system of swung around in any combination of directions while moving thru the solar system, just like satellites and space probes are sent out and moved about with 'gravity asists'. So anomalous orbits aren't a problem, and the fact that the evidence closely matches the expectations of the nebular hypothesis (planets in the same revolutions, most planets with even the same rotation, most objects with the same revolution) strongly supports that hypothesis.

Here is another page that nicely deals with most of these variations of the 'angular momentum' claims.

does the origin of the solar system violate the "law of angular momentum"? No. All of the planets go around the sun in the same direction, as you would expect for any physically reasonable scenario. Only two planets ( Venus and Uranus) spin on their axes in the retrograde sense. The spin of Venus is only slightly retrograde, and it probably migrated from a prograde to a retrograde spin, because the angle of the spin axis is chaotic over large time scales (Venus' Free Obliquity; C.F. Yoder; Icarus 117(2): 250-286, October 1995 and The Chaotic Obliquity of the Planets; J. Laskar & P. Robutel; Nature 361(6413): 608-612, February 18 1993). The spin of Uranus is almost certainly an artifact of a large collision late in the stochastic process of planet formation by accretion of planetesimals (Planet Formation; Jack J. Lissauer; Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 31: 129-174, 1993 and A Possible Constraint to Uranus' Great Collision; A. Brunini; Planetary and Space Science 43(8): 1019- 1021, August 1995).

And on the movement of the galaxies:
attributed to Tim Thompson

The velocity of a galaxy as seen by us is the sum of two component velocities; a local 'turbulent' velocity is one component, and the other is the large-scale cosmic motion [the 'Hubble flow']. Just think of an exploding bomb. All of the pieces of the bomb share in a common large-scale motion away from the explosion. But, any individual fragment will also have a peculiar, 'local' velocity of its own added onto that, depending on whether or not the peculiarities of the explosion pushed it a little bit this-way or that-way; they do not all move along a line strictly radial from the explosion.

The motion of individual galaxies in the big bang works the same way. If we look at a galaxy that is close by, like the well known Andromeda Galaxy (M31), the relative velocity we see is dominated by the local component. M31 has a blue-shifted spectrum, it moves towards our Milky Way galaxy, not away from it. However, all of the several million galaxies known to exist outside of our own local group have red-shifted spectra, they all move away from us. There is not even one single solitary exception to the rule in the millions of galaxies known. Furthermore, the observed red-shift is strictly correlated with apparent brightness, which in turn strongly depends on distance. Therefore, the red-shift is well correlated with distance, as Hubble himself pointed out about 70 or so years ago.

This shows that the argument given above is not sufficient, it does not 'disprove' big bang cosmology.

On the Bombardier Beetle:
Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design.
Here is a short examination of the issue when it first appears in creationist literature.

Secretory cells produce a mixture of hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide (and perhaps other chemicals), which collects in a reservoir. To produce the blast, the beetle releases some of this mixture into a reaction chamber, where catalases and peroxidases cause the mixture to oxidize in chemical reactions that generate enough heat to vaporize about a fifth of the mixture. The pressure of the released gasses causes the heated mixture to be expelled explosively from the beetle's abdomen (Aneshansley and Eisner 1969; Aneshansley et al. 1983; Eisner et al. 1989).

and also this

All of the steps are small or can be easily broken down into smaller ones, and all are probably selectively advantageous. Several of the intermediate stages are known to be viable by the fact that they exist in other living species

its[the big bang] accepted by most people who dont understand the laws of physics

The astrophyicists and cosmologists who accept the theory don't understand physics?

the beetle is able to defend itself from it predators [by use of explosive chemicals] because God designed it that way.

Thats not much of an explanation.

the bettle doesnt need to fly, why would it need to fly, us people dont need to fly, it would be nice, but we dont need to fly.

Why did god make some beetles escape predators by flying and others by having weird reactions in their butt?

the theory also says that before the big bang occurred, there was nothingness, (no space, time or matter) but somehow the entire universe compressed into one dense region

Inflation theory does not say this. I think that you are just going by a popular conception of what the theory is, which is all based on it being a big old explosion. Thats not what the theory is. Explosions have centers, for example, inflation theory is a universe without a center. Its not just that things fly apart, space-time itself expands with all parts becomming equally distant from each other. The analogy that I have heard is that of dots on the surface of a rapidly inflating balloon, not an explosion.
Inflation theory I beleive more properly states that there is no scientific evidence for what did exist before the inflation event, and that the event itself is what 'wiped out' that information.

there is no evidence that the big bang occurred

There certainly is. Here is a nice page about some of it.

if I am right, the non-believers are not going to heaven, they are gong to hell.

Since most evolutionists are also christians this does not appear to be a problem.

Actually, if I recall correctly the bible has strong prohibitions against false prophecy and adding to the bible, which is largely what creation 'science' does in positing things like the 'vapour canopy' or even proposing that ice comets brought water for the floods and such. Heck, creation 'science' in general denies that god has any miraculous and godly abilities and instead tries to explain whats in the bible in naturalistic terms, rather than miraculous ones.

those rings are not annual. the during WWII there was a group of planes that got lost up in greenland, they got lost and crash landed up there. the people survived but they left the planes there.

Annual Ice layers are infact annual. The ice on the supposed 'lost squadron' was in a heavy snowfall area (of greenland no? not even the artic).

the ice layer argument is what I always get when its brought up

Strong evidence for there being more than 6 thousand years of earth history is the phyisics involved in radiometric dating, which is very accurate and very resilient and also the different methods are in agreement with one another.

external image

No need to discuss the topic in an insulting way.

There is no evidence that there was a continuous land path from whereever noah's ark could've been to every other continent on the planet, which is what is needed to get animals and plants from the ark to where they are.

And just australia? The seeds magically slew out of the ark across the world and landed in australia, just in time for the animals that depend on them to eat them? And what did these animals do in the long journey from the ark to their new homes or even on the original journey to the ark??

Ok ok, you got us Creationists with this arguement hands down. Wow it would be difficult for these things to happen. And yet as I some what recall from an Evolutionist arguement, this happens:

Amoungst absolutely nothing a dot was there...where?...nowhere. And then it exploded. (This is slightly difficult to comprehend... I think the animals of Australia have a better chance of migrating to the moon than do the occurances of this theory. And yet, there is more.) So the dot expands to everything. And somehow in the mix one planet manages to stay an exact distance away from a star to sustain bacteria. Bacteria born from chemicals. (There was also a meal and a manual on hand showing the bacteria how to survive. Those lucky little buggers.) And then came forth beneficial mutation. (Just like on X-Men) Where the bacteria gave birth to something else bigger and better. And so on and so on. And then came us. I am going to stop this here because I am bored. But my serious point I have been trying to make is this. I can make a baby with every possible girl, for a billion years or more, and you know what? I will always be a proud father for one good, God given reason. That baby will always be human (Although slightly hairy for certain) because beneficial mutation does not exist. It is a fairy tale. Just like the Teenage Mutant Ninga Turtles. Mutation is not a good thing. Sure the breeding of a desired trait is good. (Such as a Dog small enough to fit in your pocket) But beneficial mutation does not happen in the World as we know it. Just try and think of an observed example. There are none. Just because the thought of have 8 arms is appealing does not mean it is plausable. I am sorry but anyone (even Scientists) who believe in Evolution is living their lives trying to become Peter Pan or Superman. It's always fun until you aren't alive anymore to live your superhuman fantasy. When you die there is nowhere to go. Always remember that afterlife is eternity. You can't live the eternity that is your "beneficial mutation wonderland" in which your theory goes on to rule the universe. You have to live the life that your body is programmed to give you... and so in my opinion you should be more concerned with eternity than the excitement of mans endeavor to be the King of the Universe. Because you will eventually be forced to shut your eyes on the Universe and open them to a new one. Be prepared.

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101
Ok ok, you got us Creationists with this arguement hands down.

That is because creationalists [young earth] never seem to offer counter arguments that are scientifically sound.

Wow it would be difficult for these things to happen. And yet as I some what recall from an Evolutionist arguement, this happens:

Amoungst absolutely nothing a dot was there...where?...nowhere. And then it exploded.

You would have alot more credibility in arguing against evolution if you actually tried to understand what evolution is. It is not the big bang. It is not aboriginesis. It is the process of life changing.. before it becomes life is not relevent. How it becomes life is irrelevent to the evolution theory as it is not evolution. I'm sure however that there are threads here that discuss aboriginesis.. perhaps you could add your koala moon migratory calculations vs big bang probabilities there. Sounds intriguing.

When you die there is nowhere to go. Always remember that afterlife is eternity.

Wow. Thanks for the tip.. scientific fact: Energy can't die it just changes.. hence why death doesn't worry me [apart from timing and other people's].

[edit on 2-8-2005 by riley]

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101 I am sorry but anyone (even Scientists) who believe in Evolution is living their lives trying to become Peter Pan or Superman..

acctually, since we are at the point where we are able to change our environment to suit ourselves, evolution pretty much states that we aint gonna change a whole helluva lot...and as a matter of fact, with the genes that make us susceptible to things like bad eye sight, congenital heart disease, Alzheimers etc, being past along to our children without consequence, we as a speices, are actually in the proccess of "de-evolving" (if you want to insist that evolution moves an any sort of "direction")... so the whole "superman" thing can't really be taken seriously.

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101 When you die there is nowhere to go.

bingo...

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101 so in my opinion you should be more concerned with eternity

how would i even be able to be "concerned" with eternity when i'm DEAD!!

Originally posted by SupaSmoove101than the excitement of mans endeavor to be the King of the Universe.

but didn't god already make us "king of the universe"?? (well okay...he made us the king of the universe's pet-spieces)
but he made us king of the earth anyway (the only planet in the universe with any sort of life whatsover), right?

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Urn]