Ken Ham's Opening Day at the Ark. #FAIL only 4000 show up. (Harry Potter, spiritual)
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.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but "whinny" is the sound a horse makes and "whiny" is the word you are actually after ... the way someone who whines is.
As an aside, "whiney" is also used, but about one-fourth as often as "whiny", which is preferred in all English dialects.
Got any green vomit to hurl with that? I don't see it as whining. I see people sharing why they believe the Ark story is fictitious based on various scientific evidence.
Which is then met with:
Which has been beat to death. We get it. You don't buy Noah's ark. Move on. No, atheists LOVE to harp on this one story because it doesn't fit well with a modern day landscape.
And yet you haven't produce a single shred of credible evidence proving that it is superstitution.
That's because it's opinion. And the opinion of atheists and non-religious are considered more important by them than the opinions of religious people.
This thread is probably indicative, in a very small degree, what Noah and family must have endured for 100 years while building the massive ark. I can just hear some of them yelling at Noah:
"Hey Noah! It's been almost 100 years now! Where's the big flood you promised?!"
"Yea Noah! We haven't had a drop of rain for over a hundred years! HA! Where is this rain coming from? HA!HA! HA!
And little children throwing rocks and other things at Noah and family and women too. And hurling more and more insults. All the atheists probably picketed it walking round and round the ark and trying to disrupt the work flow. That's probably another reason it took so long to build the ark. But God was patient with those people for 100 years. He pleaded with them through Noah, a preacher of righteousness to turn from their evil ways. But no. They obviously knew better than Noah . . . until the rain came.
And today God is made out to be a baby killer due to the flood. Yet for 100 years He Plead with those mothers to turn from their evil ways. As it turns out, the mothers are the real baby killers. They had a chance to get on the ark but refused in spite of their babies drowning.
No more offensive than many other secular groups presenting superstition as fact, like the FFRF.
Please provide examples of the "superstitions" the FFRF are presenting as "fact." thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpanaPointer
A question nobody will answer: Why couldn't a god just wave a hand and all the evil humans would vanish? Why kill the kittens, puppies, colts, calves, piglets, fledglings, baby animals of all kinds?
Well, that's one of the sharper points in all the Judeo-Christian writings and beliefs. It is utterly illogical from the get-go.
Take The Garden of Eden. Did this omniscient deity not foresee what Adam and Eve would do when tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Was he not aware they would succumb to temptation, causing him to cover all future humans and other animals in "orignal sin?"
Was God surprised at what happened in The Fall? In the Garden?
Did God not foresee that the world would eventually once again become so evil and corrupt that he'd feel compelled to destroy nearly everything and everybody?
Of course, the apologists will say "but--free will! It's the fault of humans!" Nope. The concept of free will is 100% incompatible with a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
At least according to the version of the story that you choose to believe...
You mean the one with all manner of data from several fields of science to support it? the one that doesn't simply come from books written 4000+ years back by desert tribespeople which we are supposed to swallow whole cloth?
No. Not that you are wrong but that you are woefully wrong and that, as usual you prefer to remain wilfully ignorant. Your claim that diversity of languages is not understood is wrong and to say what you did displays an astonishing level of abject ignorance on the subject.
Then Prove that I'm wrong. OTOH, here's a secular article that desperately tries to come up with an explanation for languages but has to admit that umm yea, we don't have any proof. Just guesses.
Quote:
The basic difficulty with studying the evolution of
language is that the evidence is so sparse. Spoken
languages don't leave fossils, and fossil skulls only
tell us the overall shape and size of hominid brains,
not what the brains could do.
I shouldn't need to. The very fact that you have enough intelligence to type should be telling you that you are wrong in claiming that language is not understood.
No. You are wrong because you are simply wrong...and provably so. Would you like me to prove you wrong and expose you to be even more ignorant of the subject than people already perceive you to be?
I do not require your 'respect'.
If the only argument that you bring to the table is that I'm so stupid then it folds like a house of cards in a stiff wind. if I don't respect your position then I certainly won't invest any effort or credibility into anything you say. It's all garbage to me.
A question nobody will answer: Why couldn't a god just wave a hand and all the evil humans would vanish? Why kill the kittens, puppies, colts, calves, piglets, fledglings, baby animals of all kinds?
Then Prove that I'm wrong. OTOH, here's a secular article that desperately tries to come up with an explanation for languages but has to admit that umm yea, we don't have any proof. Just guesses.
Ah. We don't have a clear or full record of the migration of linguistic families.
This clearly can ONLY mean that the tale of the Tower of Babel, as recounted in The Bible is completely true and historically accurate.
Phew. Gonna sleep better tonight having that certainty. thanks.
The fact we do have so many different languages should be a tip-off that the historic account in Genesis has plausibility. Otherwise we'd all still have just one language since humans would rather have one language to amalgamate their power.
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.
I don't see it as whining. I see people sharing why they believe the Ark story is fictitious based on various scientific evidence. 