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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 42
31
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Creationists:

"I can prove god exists because everything looks like it was designed"

"I know everything was designed because I know god exists"


This is what we call "Circular logic".




posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I have a problem with eukaryotes and prokaryotes not having any ancesters.
I have a problem with the Cambrian explosion.
I have a problem with horse shoe crabs never changing.
I have a problem with whales "evolving" from a tiny deer.
I have a problem with humans "evolving" from physically robust creatures only 250,000 years ago and the first thing we do is make clothes.
I have a problem with humans developing and passing on defective genes that kill the child before the age of puberty like cystic fibrosis.
I have a problem with junk dna that has no function that we know of.


I have a problem with people who don't research anything, and aren't even willing to pick up a book or free DVD and learn, yet criticize people who spend their lives learning and studying. Offer your own alternative backed by evidence, if you don't agree with the science. Or at least point out in detail which parts you think are wrong. You are making nothing but generalizations based on no knowledge whatsoever of the subject.

I have a problem with gravity
I have a problem with the earth being round
I have a problem with the sun providing energy to sustain life on earth

LOL, the knowledge is out there. Educate yourself or forever be a slave to your own ignorance. It's up to you.
edit on 26-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


Is there an ancestor or intermediate species that came before pro/eukaryotes?
Did the Cambrian explosion happen? If so I have a problem with it fitting into Darwinian evolution.
Horse shoe crabs bother me don't they bother you?
A deer turning into a whale? You gotta be kidding me.
Perfectly good hominids give rise to a physically weak, prone to disease species which is so smart in building stone monoliths around the globe it has some magical way of passing on diseases that kill the offspring years before it reaches puberty but somehow still passes them on to the next generation? Explain how that fits into "evolution" Mr I Hate the Earth 'Cause It's Round.



edit on 26-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
Creationists:

"I can prove god exists because everything looks like it was designed"

"I know everything was designed because I know god exists"


This is what we call "Circular logic".


You can't or rather shouldn't get into the loop until you define "god" and "designed". Then it gets much more coherent.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Is there an ancestor or intermediate species that came before pro/eukaryotes?
Did the Cambrian explosion happen? If so I have a problem with it fitting into Darwinian evolution.
Horse shoe crabs bother me don't they bother you?
A deer turning into a whale? You gotta be kidding me.
Perfectly good hominids give rise to a physically weak, prone to disease species which is so smart in building stone monoliths around the globe it has some magical way of passing on diseases that kill the offspring years before it reaches puberty but somehow still passes them on to the next generation? Explain how that fits into "evolution" Mr I Hate the Earth 'Cause It's Round.

Again, you failed to explain anything at all scientifically. You just basically said, "I don't understand, so it must be false" Cambrian explosion was a 50 million year process. How does it not fit into evolution? But yeah, the fact that diseases kill off our offspring is definitely evidence of a loving god. LMAO. If anything that's evidence of the contrary. Diseases evolve as well. The purpose of this thread is for you to offer an alternative explanation to evolution based on facts and evidence. So far nobody's done it and nobody will. They just make blanket statements knowing nothing about evolution. It's hilarious. It's easier to believe in god, because you don't have to think or analyze anything. It's like comfort food.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
This is how those who support evolution work and think and the same process is used within the established accredited community.
They pick and choose their infomation and ommitt facts and words to fit their truth.
Examine some of the key words and phrases in the definition of the, "Cambrain explosion."

The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive ("scientific debate.") The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and ("Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.")[7]

("The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.")

The Cambrain Explosion is an "Idea", not a proven fact.
But because the science community has changed the definition of "Theory" to mean "accepted truth", we need to revert to the word "Idea."



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE
 


Are you still going on about this? You failed to provide any sources whatsoever of your claims, as I requested, and now you're regurgitating the Cambrian explosion misunderstanding that's been debunked several times.

www.talkorigins.org...

It ranges from 5 million to 40 million years time. That is not sudden, by a long shot. Last I checked an all powerful deity could create life instantly, so why would it take him 5 million + years (at the very least)? You see you guys keep bringing up arguments that actually go against a creator that bear no relevance to reality.

And again, just because we can't find every single fossil to ever live or answer every single detail about evolution, doesn't mean they didn't exist or the theory is false. But you're welcome to provide your own as per this topic. But obviously you can't and won't because there's no evidence that suggests anything else.



This is how those who support evolution work and think and the same process is used within the established accredited community.


Yes, they base their conclusions on the evidence and facts, not base the facts and evidence on the conclusion like creationists. How unlogical!




They pick and choose their infomation and ommitt facts and words to fit their truth.

Such as what? You can't keep making blatantly false statements without backing them up. Those evil scientists helping make the world a better place. How dare they define a scientific theory based on science and use evolutionary science to discover new medicines and therapy techniques! They are pure evil because they don't believe in a story book as absolute truth and ignore the evidence.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
You, as is the technic goes , is twisting things.
All I have done is proved the definition of the Cambrian explosion.

en.wikipedia.org...

Any shadow of doubt is in the defination itself.

Are you denying the term in the definition , "scientific debate"
How about ,"Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks. "

What you are attempting is a normal response , "Omit some information, deny some facts and dismiss any discussion that may question your idea or belief.

I have never said what I accept, evolution or creation, both have many unanswered questions.
I never said anyone was evil.
That is your own twist on this discussion.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Is there an ancestor or intermediate species that came before pro/eukaryotes?
Did the Cambrian explosion happen? If so I have a problem with it fitting into Darwinian evolution.
Horse shoe crabs bother me don't they bother you?
A deer turning into a whale? You gotta be kidding me.
Perfectly good hominids give rise to a physically weak, prone to disease species which is so smart in building stone monoliths around the globe it has some magical way of passing on diseases that kill the offspring years before it reaches puberty but somehow still passes them on to the next generation? Explain how that fits into "evolution" Mr I Hate the Earth 'Cause It's Round.

Again, you failed to explain anything at all scientifically. You just basically said, "I don't understand, so it must be false" Cambrian explosion was a 50 million year process. How does it not fit into evolution? But yeah, the fact that diseases kill off our offspring is definitely evidence of a loving god. LMAO. If anything that's evidence of the contrary. Diseases evolve as well. The purpose of this thread is for you to offer an alternative explanation to evolution based on facts and evidence. So far nobody's done it and nobody will. They just make blanket statements knowing nothing about evolution. It's hilarious. It's easier to believe in god, because you don't have to think or analyze anything. It's like comfort food.
edit on 28-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)


I haven't even mentioned God. I'm pointing out details that don't fit the model which raises reasonable doubt. Darwin said he expected to find "innumerable intermediate species" and where are they for the pro/eukaryotes? Where are they for modern humans? Why not take each point I raised and answer with your evolution model? Where is the lead up to the Cambrian explosion? Where are their ancestors? Your genetic defect argument is silly. I never said it points to God, I said it is not even in the ballpark to explain successful adaptation or survival of the fittest. Instead of making jokes pooh poohing my questions, why not give me a scientific answer? The devil is in the details and if you want to be taken seriously you should at least try to make something up to explain these things or else you add to my point that none of it fits the established model.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   


What you are attempting is a normal response , "Omit some information, deny some facts and dismiss any discussion that may question your idea or belief.

What info was omitted and what facts were denied? All I'm asking for is sources of the claims or research papers that have purposely been ignored by science. You copied and pasted part of wiki article it looks like.


Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I haven't even mentioned God. I'm pointing out details that don't fit the model which raises reasonable doubt

You haven't provided a single source yet. I'll play your game, though, for now, but everything I'm about to tell you is readily available through google. Please give me some sources in your response so we can be clear.



Darwin said he expected to find "innumerable intermediate species" and where are they for the pro/eukaryotes?

Darwin didn't know nearly as much about fossilization and cellular biology as we know today. Darwin was the first to realize evolution, but you are taking his word as doctrine. The theory has "evolved" incredibly since those days. Fossilization is an incredibly rare process. We will never have fossils for every living creature that ever lived, especially the ones from 500 million plus year ago, not even close.

Interesting piece here about permineralization:
www.fossils-facts-and-finds.com...

It's also good to note that tons of 'transitional' fossils have been found.

en.wikipedia.org...



Where are they for modern humans?

By modern humans, do you mean fossils from the last 10,000 years? Or the homo genus?
en.wikipedia.org...
Here's a good place to start, but you may want to check out some the sources. There some very good reading there.



Where is the lead up to the Cambrian explosion? Where are their ancestors?

www.fossilmuseum.net...


Your genetic defect argument is silly. I never said it points to God, I said it is not even in the ballpark to explain successful adaptation or survival of the fittest. Instead of making jokes pooh poohing my questions, why not give me a scientific answer? The devil is in the details and if you want to be taken seriously you should at least try to make something up to explain these things or else you add to my point that none of it fits the established model.
I gave you the scientific answers every time. I have yet to see any scientific studies or sources from you yet, but I enjoy this, so good luck to ye. You may want to google "genetic mutation".
edit on 28-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Things that don’t support the idea of evolution. All we do is adapt. Someone once told me that the reason we are adapting so much is so because it’s easier than evolving. The fact is, if we evolved, we wouldn’t need to adapt. So I’m not seeing any evolution in process, only adaptation.



We build and live inside buildings to protect us from the environment. It’s an unforeseeable type of adaptation. We have been doing these things since our placement on this planet. Processed / plumbed water to also fit our needs. The fact is nothing seems to safely tie us to this planet aside from air, and water. We can’t even drink most of the water on this planet, it has to be processed, yet another lack of evolving, and what is actually adaptation. Adaptation is not an excuse for the lack of evolution, our evolution is simply failing. At what point did we start processing water, where primates just drink from rivers and streams? At what point did we lose our hair, and make a sewing machine to make clothing. At what point did we give up being bare foot and need socks and shoes? Was it a clear change or a transition. We even have to have heat and AC in our buildings as we aren’t safe in the natural weather.



If we have evolved, I’m not seeing it, much less do we have a better outcome. Living as primates would have been simple compared to our current life. We would have given up a suited life, to cross over to a complex world of adaptation. 12 defects in our genes wont allow us to live past puberty, how did this play into evolution? Was it assumed that we would have to ramp up our medical knowledge just to survive, so it was ok to become sickley?



We gave up swinging from trees because building roads, manufacturing cars, and processing fossil fuels made it a lot easier to get around. At what point did our needs exceed our efforts? Nothing adds up when you look for evolution, there seems to be a complete lack of continuity. We seem to be missing the plethora of proof connecting us to primates, in addition to the plethora or transitional bones. The Assam tribune publishes an article on December 12th 2010, clearly stating that our population did go through a bottleneck period between 117,000 and 275,000 years ago, but that our population never dipped below tens of thousands of people. So if we evolved, where are the bones?



A chromosome comparison between chimps, gorillas and orangutans are practically identical, yet when they are compared to human chromosomes. Humans carry 46 chromosomes and primates that we supposedly evolved from carry 48. The two chromosomes that appear to be missing are actually fused together. This type of fusion has never been witnessed or proven to naturally occur in the wild. This type of change is done in a laboratory. You can see a video about this called human genetics by Lloyd Pye. Lloyd believes we were created by extraterrestrials and there is a lot of information that seems to support the theory. It is possible that primates were used as a base build. It does explain the unexplainable transition. I think the similarity is superficial. It’s possible that they look so much alike because we are all humanoid. Another words if they were able to get a chromosome sample from an alien, it too might look a lot like ours provided they are also humanoid.



Is it also possible that we were simply abducted, and placed here on earth? That is what aliens do, they abduct people. Both possibilities explain the lack of connection with primates.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Darwin said he expected to find "innumerable intermediate species"...

Mmm... I love the smell of quote mining in the early evening. Let's see what Darwin actually had to say about that.


But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
(6th Ed., Chapter 6, p. 134)

So the theory predicts the organisms themselves existed but, as was recognized even in Darwin's day, not everything that dies becomes fossilized.

I think it's interesting that creationists continually attack the fossil record (Unless, of course, they think they've found something out of place in it... then, suddenly, the fossil record has veracity, but that's another topic of conversation.) when the fossil record is really only one relatively small piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The genetic evidence outweighs the fossil evidence to such a degree that, even in the complete absence of a fossil record, the theory would still stand.

The real crux of Darwin's work was heredity and how heritable traits provided for fitness within a particular niche. If you think it was paleontology, you already missed the point.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Because someone does not agree with every aspect of evolution, does not mean they do not accept the idea of evolution.
The same with creationalists.
If someone has doubts and questions in either evolution or creation they are labeled and branded for representing the other side, for casting any shadow of doubt on the others belief just for asking questions.
You and a few others assume to much not only in what you believe but what you say in your posts.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A chromosome comparison between chimps, gorillas and orangutans are practically identical, yet when they are compared to human chromosomes. Humans carry 46 chromosomes and primates that we supposedly evolved from carry 48. The two chromosomes that appear to be missing are actually fused together. This type of fusion has never been witnessed or proven to naturally occur in the wild. This type of change is done in a laboratory. You can see a video about this called human genetics by Lloyd Pye. Lloyd believes we were created by extraterrestrials and there is a lot of information that seems to support the theory. It is possible that primates were used as a base build. It does explain the unexplainable transition. I think the similarity is superficial. It’s possible that they look so much alike because we are all humanoid. Another words if they were able to get a chromosome sample from an alien, it too might look a lot like ours provided they are also humanoid.

(Emphasis mine.)

You're like Kent Hovind, only without the PhD -- you've been provided with information showing that genetic fusions identical to the one observed in humans that differentiate from other great apes have been observed in other species, but still stick to your unsupported assertion that it "has never been witnessed or proven to happen naturally in the wild". It's observed in fungi, cattle, horses, mice, sheep, plants, frogs, salamanders, etc. In fact, the kind of chromosomal fusion referred to here has also been called a Robertsonian translocation, named for the scientist that discovered it in 1916 in grasshoppers. So if it only occurs in a lab and never in the wild, then how was it observed nearly forty years before the structure of DNA was determined and nearly sixty years before the first laboratory genetic engineering took place?



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Darwin said he expected to find "innumerable intermediate species"...

Mmm... I love the smell of quote mining in the early evening. Let's see what Darwin actually had to say about that.


But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
(6th Ed., Chapter 6, p. 134)

So the theory predicts the organisms themselves existed but, as was recognized even in Darwin's day, not everything that dies becomes fossilized.

I think it's interesting that creationists continually attack the fossil record (Unless, of course, they think they've found something out of place in it... then, suddenly, the fossil record has veracity, but that's another topic of conversation.) when the fossil record is really only one relatively small piece of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. The genetic evidence outweighs the fossil evidence to such a degree that, even in the complete absence of a fossil record, the theory would still stand.

The real crux of Darwin's work was heredity and how heritable traits provided for fitness within a particular niche. If you think it was paleontology, you already missed the point.


well then quote where he discusses it in the Imperfection of the Geological Record section. Either way the record shows the first single celled life began while the planet was still basically a cooling cinder and they appear complete with no sign of ancestors.

I am not a creationist but I believe the planet was terraformed by advanced beings... small "g" gods. Following all we know regarding a comprehensive record of more than fossils it makes way more sense than anything else. Especially the genetic part.
edit on 28-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A chromosome comparison between chimps, gorillas and orangutans are practically identical, yet when they are compared to human chromosomes. Humans carry 46 chromosomes and primates that we supposedly evolved from carry 48. The two chromosomes that appear to be missing are actually fused together. This type of fusion has never been witnessed or proven to naturally occur in the wild. This type of change is done in a laboratory. You can see a video about this called human genetics by Lloyd Pye. Lloyd believes we were created by extraterrestrials and there is a lot of information that seems to support the theory. It is possible that primates were used as a base build. It does explain the unexplainable transition. I think the similarity is superficial. It’s possible that they look so much alike because we are all humanoid. Another words if they were able to get a chromosome sample from an alien, it too might look a lot like ours provided they are also humanoid.

(Emphasis mine.)

You're like Kent Hovind, only without the PhD -- you've been provided with information showing that genetic fusions identical to the one observed in humans that differentiate from other great apes have been observed in other species, but still stick to your unsupported assertion that it "has never been witnessed or proven to happen naturally in the wild". It's observed in fungi, cattle, horses, mice, sheep, plants, frogs, salamanders, etc. In fact, the kind of chromosomal fusion referred to here has also been called a Robertsonian translocation, named for the scientist that discovered it in 1916 in grasshoppers. So if it only occurs in a lab and never in the wild, then how was it observed nearly forty years before the structure of DNA was determined and nearly sixty years before the first laboratory genetic engineering took place?


Just more evidence that the planet and all life on it has been artificially manipulated. Those translocations are non-random and cause things like retardation. That doesn't fit with the Darwinian model of random mutation and successful adaptation but it does fit with genetic tampering and mistakes.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by itsthetooth
 


A chromosome comparison between chimps, gorillas and orangutans are practically identical, yet when they are compared to human chromosomes. Humans carry 46 chromosomes and primates that we supposedly evolved from carry 48. The two chromosomes that appear to be missing are actually fused together. This type of fusion has never been witnessed or proven to naturally occur in the wild. This type of change is done in a laboratory. You can see a video about this called human genetics by Lloyd Pye. Lloyd believes we were created by extraterrestrials and there is a lot of information that seems to support the theory. It is possible that primates were used as a base build. It does explain the unexplainable transition. I think the similarity is superficial. It’s possible that they look so much alike because we are all humanoid. Another words if they were able to get a chromosome sample from an alien, it too might look a lot like ours provided they are also humanoid.

(Emphasis mine.)

You're like Kent Hovind, only without the PhD -- you've been provided with information showing that genetic fusions identical to the one observed in humans that differentiate from other great apes have been observed in other species, but still stick to your unsupported assertion that it "has never been witnessed or proven to happen naturally in the wild". It's observed in fungi, cattle, horses, mice, sheep, plants, frogs, salamanders, etc. In fact, the kind of chromosomal fusion referred to here has also been called a Robertsonian translocation, named for the scientist that discovered it in 1916 in grasshoppers. So if it only occurs in a lab and never in the wild, then how was it observed nearly forty years before the structure of DNA was determined and nearly sixty years before the first laboratory genetic engineering took place?


Just more evidence that the planet and all life on it has been artificially manipulated. Those translocations are non-random and cause things like retardation. That doesn't fit with the Darwinian model of random mutation and successful adaptation but it does fit with genetic tampering and mistakes.


Unless these were witnessed in controlled circumstances, IE... nothing of an intelligent force manipulating it, I would hesitate to say it's natural. I think humans have unnatural changes in our genes as well.



posted on Oct, 28 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

well then quote where he discusses it in the Imperfection of the Geological Record section.
Why? I already showed how you took the quote out of context.


Either way the record shows the first single celled life began while the planet was still basically a cooling cinder and they appear complete with no sign of ancestors.

Given that the prevailing view is that it only spent it's first 500My or so cooling and life appeared 500My to 1By after that, I think your "still basically a cooling cinder" claim is little more than hyperbole. Also, you may want to keep up with the current research. There's new evidence that there was liquid water on the surface as early as 4.4By ago. But there needs to be more research done in that area.


I am not a creationist but I believe the planet was terraformed by advanced beings... small "g" gods. Following all we know regarding a comprehensive record of more than fossils it makes way more sense than anything else. Especially the genetic part.

Feel free to present your objective evidence supporting your hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Satan was cast from heaven with his angels having the knowledge of reproduction. Eve was the perfect surrogate mother that Satan the beast could use as an incubator for serpent seeds. The serpent did not produce through primates, it would have served no purpose he was above all beast of a higher gene between man & beast, the missing link is the original serpent God cursed. The seed of the serpent mixed with human blood became flesh. They enter unnoticed like a germ a virus & once that bacterial unbelief germ grew like Cain they killed Gods seeds. Is. 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Ezek. 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God. Gen. 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. Lucifer told Eve God blest them they must multiply on earth...

God cursed the original serpent in Eden to a snake & since then has a snake in its place to show how low it is, now this thick hairy man was walking in Eden, Satan couldn't get to Adam at all but he went through this in between subject, don't tell me it was a snake, it was after God cursed that punk, it was a man, snakes can't talk this person talked with Eve, so we see God had Eve a by-product and the devil had a in between subject that he could use to get to Eve, the devil still uses beasts and snakes to kill people But The Good Shepherd Protects Us And Watches Out And Kills All Snakes For Us. So this man/beast subject, beast brain, mans body, he walked there and was a perfect subject for Satan to come into and use that body of that Serpent to sow perverted seed, plant the seed in Eve and bring forth death, God said the day you eat(have sex) or Spiritual fornications with the devil That Day You Die,

God preserved His word for us, that is why we have & know truth today by Gods grace. A great event took place during the flood that altered calendars & rocked the earth out of orbit. This is what happened at the time. Only a great mass in weight on the planet could throw it out of orbit & the flood-waters in Noah’s days did that. I believe this great event took place at the end of the 40th day of the flood when the earth was flooded with billions of tons of water then the calendars changed from 360 days a year to the Julian calendar 365.25 an 5 ½ days extra per year. Now watch this now it is very exciting to see the 7th seal already hidden in Noah’s days. Noah entered the ark on the 17/2 the 17th day of the 2nd month which in our calendar is February. Gen. 7:11 In the 600 year of Noah's life, in the 2nd month, the 17th day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up & the windows of heaven were opened. . .



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

Feel free to present your objective evidence supporting your hypothesis.


Go to Egypt and bang your head against one of the pyramids. If there is a pyramid there that's your proof. Granted you're very intelligent, but that doesn't mean you're correct.



posted on Oct, 29 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Msngr11
 


I hope you realize what you're doing is PREACHING and not based on facts or objective evidence



new topics




 
31
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join