Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point, since you have such a difficult time with these things, is that so much evidence exists that refutes the Noah tale, (which has been displayed to you time and time again) that we needn't prove or disprove that 30 million animals were on the ark. If there were 30 million, 1 million, 7000, 4000, or 1 on the ark, the story is still silly.
Just accept the fact that you are wrong and we can go to the next step.
If so much evidence exists that refutes the Noah tale, I wouldn't be here defending it. There is actually more evidence for it than against it. Evidence which I've shown over and over and over but you have such a difficult time dealing with reality that you can't see it.
Just accept the fact that you are wrong and we can go to the next step.
If so much evidence exists that refutes the Noah tale, I wouldn't be here defending it. There is actually more evidence for it than against it. Evidence which I've shown over and over and over but you have such a difficult time dealing with reality that you can't see it.
All you've provided is the Ham defenses, "Historical Science", and "We have a book". Neither of these is evidence.
Quit acting like an 8 year old and maybe we'd get somewhere.
Oh, you so walked into that one.
Hey, don't get mad. I'm just trying to lighten up your day.
LOL! No worries, I have a thicker skin than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Speaking of making stuff up, have you recently tried to take some single celled amoebas and tried to make a fish which then turns into a chimp which then turns into a human? No? You'd think if nature could do it by accident you and your smarty-pants scientists could do it on purpose.
Sure ... just as soon as a smarty-pants scientist lives for around 500 million years or more.
Just accept the fact that you are wrong and we can go to the next step.
If so much evidence exists that refutes the Noah tale, I wouldn't be here defending it. There is actually more evidence for it than against it. Evidence which I've shown over and over and over but you have such a difficult time dealing with reality that you can't see it.
I'll just ask you to explain one thing for me, if the flood did happen and according to the bible it lasted for 314 days, then how do you explain a 5000 year old Bristlecone pine, or the tree that was found in Sweden that is suggested to be 9500 years old. I would suggest that if you took and conifer and submerged it in water for 314 days it would be dead by about day 50.
I'll just ask you to explain one thing for me, if the flood did happen and according to the bible it lasted for 314 days, then how do you explain a 5000 year old Bristlecone pine, or the tree that was found in Sweden that is suggested to be 9500 years old. I would suggest that if you took and conifer and submerged it in water for 314 days it would be dead by about day 50.
Some of those trees survived the flood just as some of the olive trees did.
Some of those trees survived the flood just as some of the olive trees did.
Probably the bible god put magic air bubbles around them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
