Where did all this wet stuff come from?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


That you are trying to create controversy?

Well you are doing the job: Benford's Law of Controversy: "Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available."

in other words, the more factual information that you are presented, the more you entrench in your beliefs and dismiss it, in order to create controversy. I would say you are doing a good job of doing that.




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





why?


Because he did it all for us in the first place.


I didn't realize that narcissism is required to be a Christian.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by The Vagabond
 





And since were on the biblical flood as an alternative to science, do you believe that at some point in the last few thousand years that the global population was reduced to just Noah's family on Mount Ararat?



As I said in a previous post I believe science is merely a
description of the mechanics God uses in his creation.
I'm convinced that if the Bible says there was a world
wide flood then there was a wwf. And we should be able
to find the mechanics that make that possible.
edit on 29-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)






What makes you so sure that God had anything to do with the bible?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 





I didn't realize that narcissism is required to be a Christian.



I can easily see the point of your question. Good one.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


That is the answer, that it is the most likely theory. Things like this cannot be 100% proven because it was in the past. Unless we see another planet go thru these process.

Whats your answer? God?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 





Whats your answer? God?



I assume you think that would be absurd. Can you tell me why?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Because there is no frickin evidence. lol What else?

It seems its hard to believe a theory from a educated man in the modern century but can easily believe a magic story from a 2000yr old men?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by randyvs
 


Because there is no frickin evidence. lol What else?

It seems its hard to believe a theory from a educated man in the modern century but can easily believe a magic story from a 2000yr old men?


Oh that depends on what you see as evidence entirely.
And being educated doesn't mean you aren't full of crap.
Absence of your preferred evidence is not is not evidence
of your preferred absence. Not by any means.
Not at all scientific either.
edit on 29-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Who knew what people saw in bushes and caves in those ancient times.. hearing voices and seeing stuff..people would call that high off some substance... anyway...

Educated means it is something, if it weren't for that you would not be using the computer to discuss right now!


It seems you are confusing education with "paid researchers".



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


And you seem to be confused about the topic.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   

randyvs

I'm convinced that if the Bible says there was a world
wide flood then there was a wwf.



Science says there was not a world wide flood, so what's the next logical conclusion after that?


*waits for cognitive dissonance*
edit on 1-29-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Ok, so science, being the mechanism by which everything in the bible actually happened, must explain how a single family started out on a mountain in Turkey, and had so many children of such genetic diversity and such wanderlust that they were able to repopulate the planet and resume the function of cultures on six continents so quickly that the archaeological record looks like most cultures were never interrupted at all, even though the planet would be virtually empty of humans for at least 2 centuries after the flood even if they humped like rabbits. Please begin the science lesson with how that was accomplished.

Or if you can't, I have a competing theory- maybe instead of God writing the flood story, the Sumerians did, long before the bible was even a voice in a nomad's head, and when they throw around words like "the world", they actually mean "for as far as any of us can ride a horse", which is a news worthy flood I guess, but not exactly biblical proportions.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 





Science says there was not a world wide flood, so what's the next logical conclusion after that?


I don't believe science says that. You say it does, but
I don't think you know that to be true at all


The Vagabond



Ok, so science, being the mechanism by which everything in the bible actually happened,


That's not what I said. Those are your words not mine.
edit on 29-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   

randyvs

I don't believe science says that.


Annnnnnnd there it is! "b-b-b-but if there wasn't a flood, then my bible is lying!"


Belief is all you have. Facts speak for themselves. there are no geological records anywhere that support a global flood ever happening.
edit on 1-29-14 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 





Annnnnnnd there it is!


This is your big eureka moment?

Come on, you can do better.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
And now the backpeddling begins. I never said that... except just one page ago. But I see a lot of quippy one liners and no substance at all in most of your replies. You're clearly just saying ridiculous stuff because you take more pride in your thread stats than in your ability to understand and rationally discuss your own ideas. I won't bother quoting you to yourself since you have so little to say.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


I know exactly what I said and every response has been appropriated.
As per your question, how can I answer when you lead with a misquote?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

randyvs
reply to post by paradox
 





Annnnnnnd there it is!


This is your big eureka moment?

Come on, you can do better.


You ignore everything else, lol



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


I'll quote it for you.




As I said in a previous post I believe science is merely a
description of the mechanics God uses in his creation.



posted on Jan, 30 2014 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Well dude, you won't entertain discussion, nor supply a rebuttal longer than one sentence nor stronger than your seemingly set-in-stone conviction (that bible based perception).

Regardless, thought this may interest you. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Good luck with your controversies.
See ya round the forums





 
10
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join