"Noah's Ark" remains discovered in Iran
- Thread starter Stealth
- Start date
I was thinking the same shit reading through this last page....
Not only that, if you believe in God, ANYTHING is "possible" because God can do "anything" according to most wackjobs that believe in GOD. Now, anyone with a brain, wouldn't call it GOD because you can't label something like that.
No man can be 500 years old. Anyone who says "god did it" is a fucking schmuck and doesn't understand how human bodies work and decompose.
Although, I did see a book about living after death and how the mind only convinces the body to die--but that seems like a nice load of horse shit, and they even sited Jesus as the first!
Here's the deal. If you believe in GOD--you can say God did anything, it's your cop out to deal with life. No more, no less. It's a fix for the imperfect world we live in that the weak cannot deal with.
If you don't believe in God, well--things will be more logical. Granted some things happen for unapparent reasons, but I think the problem of saying GOD is that the believers somehow think they now KNOW what God IS because they call it GOD and can label it and personalize it.
And it's a cop out to post a link and not refute things people say after you post it for clarification of your point. If you aren't willing to defend it, dont' post it or show that's what you think....I mean, unless you want to debate and have a REAL conversation....otherwise, carry on with the garbally goop that keeps getting bullshitted in this thread. Either stand up or sit the FUCK down.
Not only that, if you believe in God, ANYTHING is "possible" because God can do "anything" according to most wackjobs that believe in GOD. Now, anyone with a brain, wouldn't call it GOD because you can't label something like that.
No man can be 500 years old. Anyone who says "god did it" is a fucking schmuck and doesn't understand how human bodies work and decompose.
Although, I did see a book about living after death and how the mind only convinces the body to die--but that seems like a nice load of horse shit, and they even sited Jesus as the first!
Here's the deal. If you believe in GOD--you can say God did anything, it's your cop out to deal with life. No more, no less. It's a fix for the imperfect world we live in that the weak cannot deal with.
If you don't believe in God, well--things will be more logical. Granted some things happen for unapparent reasons, but I think the problem of saying GOD is that the believers somehow think they now KNOW what God IS because they call it GOD and can label it and personalize it.
And it's a cop out to post a link and not refute things people say after you post it for clarification of your point. If you aren't willing to defend it, dont' post it or show that's what you think....I mean, unless you want to debate and have a REAL conversation....otherwise, carry on with the garbally goop that keeps getting bullshitted in this thread. Either stand up or sit the FUCK down.
Now let me get on you since you obviously want to stick your nose in my business (just like 206 did.)
No one pays you to think, and posting what you think doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Why can't you label it as "god", and why don't you provide a NEW definition since god does not work for you?
First, why are you (and 206) using insults to describe people who believe in God? Not once in this thread have I ridiculed athiest, and to be honest I don't think I've EVER ridiculed an athiest because they didn't believe in God. Now, if you want to have a REAL debate or converstation, the first thing YOU need to do is leave the insults at the door if no one has insulted you OR directed anything your way.
Also, it is impossible to compare the CURRENT state of man AND the earth to early man and earth. Consider the fact that a lot of animals were LARGER in earlier periods. Consider the fact that oxygen content was different. Consider teh fact that pollution did not exist. Consider the fact that global warming did not exist. Our bodies grow old and decompose at the rate they do because of the current conditions, but common sense would tell you that you WILL have different results under different circumstances.
ok.
You have people that don't believe in God, yet claim anything is possible because we live in a fabricated world. However, you are entitled to your opinion, so feel free to believe what you want.
This is your opinion. This is not something that has been studied and proven to be true.
Some people do what you claim. Other believers in "God" believe that God is "UNKNOWABLE", and I encourage you to research earlier religions (especially those stemming from Judaism) in regards to this subject.
No, it isn't a cop out, and as I have already shown I CAN refute everything 206 has presented. The problem is I WON'T do it. Also, keep in mind that HE said it was not possible. All I did was provide him with a link with one guy saying it WAS possible. If I had given him 20 links would he have been required to answer back and refute them all? NO. Why? Because I NEVER CITED THE LINK AS A SOURCE OF MY BELIEFS. I simply said to hit the link if you want to know if it is possible or not. That is 206's bad for making a long drawn out post in response to it. He could have read the link, said I don't believe it, and that would have been it.
I can post WHATEVER I want, WHENEVER I want, HOWEVER I want as long as I am in the confines of the rules and regulations implemented on this board. With that being said there is nothing YOU (yes I am making reference to you personally) NOR the mod of this forum can do about it. If my posting of a link and not talking about it was a violation let the mod handle it.
Also, when 206 posted the links and said the findings looked like rocks did I go into a long drawn out post explaining how the findings resemble petrified wood? NO! Did I question 206 and ask him to refute the findings as petrified wood? NO! A person can give a link for INFORMATIVE PURPOSES and the link I gave 206 (in regards to the possibility) was STRICTLY for informative purposes.
I have already stated this is NOT something I am debating. However, if I do choose to debate I will do so. Also, it is my personal belief (based on a specific response in the past) that YOU (yes you) don't know anything about real debate, argument or convo. However, if you WANT to debate something we can possibly set something up and do it. First, I ask that you know a bit about policy debate, and after that I ask that you present a couple of resolutions. If you do not wish to do this, strike "real" from your current selection of words.
Make me. :dead:
No one pays you to think, and posting what you think doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Why can't you label it as "god", and why don't you provide a NEW definition since god does not work for you?
First, why are you (and 206) using insults to describe people who believe in God? Not once in this thread have I ridiculed athiest, and to be honest I don't think I've EVER ridiculed an athiest because they didn't believe in God. Now, if you want to have a REAL debate or converstation, the first thing YOU need to do is leave the insults at the door if no one has insulted you OR directed anything your way.
Also, it is impossible to compare the CURRENT state of man AND the earth to early man and earth. Consider the fact that a lot of animals were LARGER in earlier periods. Consider the fact that oxygen content was different. Consider teh fact that pollution did not exist. Consider the fact that global warming did not exist. Our bodies grow old and decompose at the rate they do because of the current conditions, but common sense would tell you that you WILL have different results under different circumstances.
ok.
You have people that don't believe in God, yet claim anything is possible because we live in a fabricated world. However, you are entitled to your opinion, so feel free to believe what you want.
This is your opinion. This is not something that has been studied and proven to be true.
Some people do what you claim. Other believers in "God" believe that God is "UNKNOWABLE", and I encourage you to research earlier religions (especially those stemming from Judaism) in regards to this subject.
No, it isn't a cop out, and as I have already shown I CAN refute everything 206 has presented. The problem is I WON'T do it. Also, keep in mind that HE said it was not possible. All I did was provide him with a link with one guy saying it WAS possible. If I had given him 20 links would he have been required to answer back and refute them all? NO. Why? Because I NEVER CITED THE LINK AS A SOURCE OF MY BELIEFS. I simply said to hit the link if you want to know if it is possible or not. That is 206's bad for making a long drawn out post in response to it. He could have read the link, said I don't believe it, and that would have been it.
I can post WHATEVER I want, WHENEVER I want, HOWEVER I want as long as I am in the confines of the rules and regulations implemented on this board. With that being said there is nothing YOU (yes I am making reference to you personally) NOR the mod of this forum can do about it. If my posting of a link and not talking about it was a violation let the mod handle it.
Also, when 206 posted the links and said the findings looked like rocks did I go into a long drawn out post explaining how the findings resemble petrified wood? NO! Did I question 206 and ask him to refute the findings as petrified wood? NO! A person can give a link for INFORMATIVE PURPOSES and the link I gave 206 (in regards to the possibility) was STRICTLY for informative purposes.
I have already stated this is NOT something I am debating. However, if I do choose to debate I will do so. Also, it is my personal belief (based on a specific response in the past) that YOU (yes you) don't know anything about real debate, argument or convo. However, if you WANT to debate something we can possibly set something up and do it. First, I ask that you know a bit about policy debate, and after that I ask that you present a couple of resolutions. If you do not wish to do this, strike "real" from your current selection of words.
Make me. :dead:
If this supposedly happened 5-6 thousand years ago, then yes, we do have a pretty good idea on what the conditions were like (based on fossils, etc.).
Nope, or else I wouldn’t have asked the questions.
Point to me, in the article, where the following questions were answered:
• How many people manned this boat? Was it 6 people?
• How did they build the boat, without cranes or factories, thousands of years ago?
• How long were they at sea?
• Not only would the boat have to be big enough to fit 32,000 species (including dinosaurs), it would have to accommodate all of the different types of food and water (without refrigeration)…
NOTE: The author makes some wild assumptions that God created “hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark.” Of course we know this just silly since only a small percentage of species actually hibernate.
Another wild assumption he makes is “The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food.”
Yes, I understand and I’m telling you, and whomever else, why I think his conclusions are bullshit/impossible.
By posting the link it implies it.
See above.
And I’m refuting the author’s claims.
It certainly seems like it.
Then take this as a direct challenge.
It certainly implies it.
Why? I can care less about some creationist wackjob that I don’t know. I enjoy posting and discussing topics here, on the siccness.
Very true and I have no problem with posting links. However, there is nothing wrong with reading an article and discussing the contents.
I’d like to know, how it is, that HERESY knows this story of Noah to be true.
Obviously you understand the problems with this story. You know why logical thinkers reject it and why pure common sense says it’s impossible. And yet you believe it, why, if not for pure blind faith?
Pure evil? Lmao.
It’s not a matter of a difference of opinion, HERESY, one “opinion” is based on fact (evidence that can be verified and tested through scientific means), and the other is not. Any credible scientist who rejects facts and replaces it with faith in religion is a “wackjob” (harsh language, perhaps) and is the one who is truly doing a disservice to the scientific community. And quite frankly you will not find many scientists that claim man walked with dinosaurs who does not have faith in God.
Those that believe dinosaurs walked with man have not presented any consistent scientific studies or data that suggest otherwise. They based their “research” on things that are NOT considered scientific, such as:
• Anecdotal Evidence, i.e. hearsay.
• The Bible or other holy books.
• Faith.
As soon as unscientific means are introduced into the scientific community, it does the community a disservice. Calling someone within the scientific community a “wackjob” does not, perhaps a personal insult, but it does not harm the community in a whole (after all, it’s up to the “wackjob” or any scientist who makes a claim that contradicts a scientific law, to prove their theory, or at the very least provide evidence that backs them up).
This statement is true but very rarely will you ever see any credible scientist attempt to prove outrageous stories like Noah’s Ark with scientific methods (because it is scientifically impossible!). All these people have to rely on is blind faith.
2+2=4. This will not change. We have things that are scientifically proven and are scientific facts/laws. These do not change. When I drop a pencil it will always fall. This will never change as long as we are on earth.
5 thousand years ago?
Good. Then you will know that carbon dating is highly accurate up to approximately 50,000 years. If we’re discussing something that occurred 5,000 years ago, no problemo.
The scientific community in general. There is countless amounts of data that disprove a world flood.
No you cannot. And if you’re so confident, I challenge you to do so.
Which came straight from the article you posted.
You tell me.
Again, it came straight from the article you provided, which is what I was refuting in the first place.
Yeah, that was my fuck up because I misread the authors words.
No shit Sherlock. It’s an irrelevant point comrade. I mistakenly said 32 instead of 16. Sorry, I’ll take the 16.
And yet you’re discussing it.
I really don’t care if it was directed at another member, I chose to respond to your question. Makes no difference.
By proving that a world flood, and the entire idea of Noah’s Ark is not scientifically possible, disproves that this is Noah’s Ark.
HERESY, I already read the article from which the pictures I posted came from. They stated that some of it, they thought, was petrified wood. I was already aware of the claim and I switched nothing up. You posted links, which implies that this is what you think it is (even though you refused to confirm or deny your position).
What I have provided disproves that the story behind Noah’s Ark is false.
No world flood, no Noah’s Ark.
As I stated, at the very BEST, someone got his farm animals on a boat and survived a storm. Could this be true? Yes. Could the pictures provided be this boat? As of yet, there is no evidence that suggests this.
Why? Were not debating the existence of god in this thread, were debating Noah’s Ark.
Its becoming one.
Nope, or else I wouldn’t have asked the questions.
Point to me, in the article, where the following questions were answered:
• How many people manned this boat? Was it 6 people?
• How did they build the boat, without cranes or factories, thousands of years ago?
• How long were they at sea?
• Not only would the boat have to be big enough to fit 32,000 species (including dinosaurs), it would have to accommodate all of the different types of food and water (without refrigeration)…
NOTE: The author makes some wild assumptions that God created “hibernation instinct for the animals on the Ark.” Of course we know this just silly since only a small percentage of species actually hibernate.
Another wild assumption he makes is “The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food.”
Yes, I understand and I’m telling you, and whomever else, why I think his conclusions are bullshit/impossible.
By posting the link it implies it.
See above.
And I’m refuting the author’s claims.
It certainly seems like it.
Then take this as a direct challenge.
It certainly implies it.
Why? I can care less about some creationist wackjob that I don’t know. I enjoy posting and discussing topics here, on the siccness.
Very true and I have no problem with posting links. However, there is nothing wrong with reading an article and discussing the contents.
I’d like to know, how it is, that HERESY knows this story of Noah to be true.
Obviously you understand the problems with this story. You know why logical thinkers reject it and why pure common sense says it’s impossible. And yet you believe it, why, if not for pure blind faith?
Pure evil? Lmao.
It’s not a matter of a difference of opinion, HERESY, one “opinion” is based on fact (evidence that can be verified and tested through scientific means), and the other is not. Any credible scientist who rejects facts and replaces it with faith in religion is a “wackjob” (harsh language, perhaps) and is the one who is truly doing a disservice to the scientific community. And quite frankly you will not find many scientists that claim man walked with dinosaurs who does not have faith in God.
Those that believe dinosaurs walked with man have not presented any consistent scientific studies or data that suggest otherwise. They based their “research” on things that are NOT considered scientific, such as:
• Anecdotal Evidence, i.e. hearsay.
• The Bible or other holy books.
• Faith.
As soon as unscientific means are introduced into the scientific community, it does the community a disservice. Calling someone within the scientific community a “wackjob” does not, perhaps a personal insult, but it does not harm the community in a whole (after all, it’s up to the “wackjob” or any scientist who makes a claim that contradicts a scientific law, to prove their theory, or at the very least provide evidence that backs them up).
This statement is true but very rarely will you ever see any credible scientist attempt to prove outrageous stories like Noah’s Ark with scientific methods (because it is scientifically impossible!). All these people have to rely on is blind faith.
2+2=4. This will not change. We have things that are scientifically proven and are scientific facts/laws. These do not change. When I drop a pencil it will always fall. This will never change as long as we are on earth.
5 thousand years ago?
Good. Then you will know that carbon dating is highly accurate up to approximately 50,000 years. If we’re discussing something that occurred 5,000 years ago, no problemo.
The scientific community in general. There is countless amounts of data that disprove a world flood.
No you cannot. And if you’re so confident, I challenge you to do so.
Which came straight from the article you posted.
You tell me.
Again, it came straight from the article you provided, which is what I was refuting in the first place.
Yeah, that was my fuck up because I misread the authors words.
No shit Sherlock. It’s an irrelevant point comrade. I mistakenly said 32 instead of 16. Sorry, I’ll take the 16.
And yet you’re discussing it.
I really don’t care if it was directed at another member, I chose to respond to your question. Makes no difference.
By proving that a world flood, and the entire idea of Noah’s Ark is not scientifically possible, disproves that this is Noah’s Ark.
HERESY, I already read the article from which the pictures I posted came from. They stated that some of it, they thought, was petrified wood. I was already aware of the claim and I switched nothing up. You posted links, which implies that this is what you think it is (even though you refused to confirm or deny your position).
What I have provided disproves that the story behind Noah’s Ark is false.
No world flood, no Noah’s Ark.
As I stated, at the very BEST, someone got his farm animals on a boat and survived a storm. Could this be true? Yes. Could the pictures provided be this boat? As of yet, there is no evidence that suggests this.
Why? Were not debating the existence of god in this thread, were debating Noah’s Ark.
Its becoming one.
Also, pay attention to 206's FIRST response to the link I posted:
That was his FIRST response. It was NOT a long drawn out response. Here is my IMMEDIATE response to 206's statement, and keep in mind that this was made BEFORE he actually went in depth with his response.
Pay attention to the bold letters. Now, with that being said I had established the fact that it was SIMPLY a link that he could hit IF he wanted insight on how it COULD be done.
Let me lay it out flat for you (206, sixxness and anyone else reading), because what you cats are doing is downright wrong. You are asking me to reply to 206's refutation of a link that was cited for INFORMATIVE purposes. My question to you all is why SHOULD I respond when 206 thought it was a laughing matter and dind't show me ANY respect from the gates? Do you honestly believe I am going to refute anything he is saying when his FIRST response to the link was "ROTMFLMMFAO@the article you provided?"
No.
That was his FIRST response. It was NOT a long drawn out response. Here is my IMMEDIATE response to 206's statement, and keep in mind that this was made BEFORE he actually went in depth with his response.
Pay attention to the bold letters. Now, with that being said I had established the fact that it was SIMPLY a link that he could hit IF he wanted insight on how it COULD be done.
Let me lay it out flat for you (206, sixxness and anyone else reading), because what you cats are doing is downright wrong. You are asking me to reply to 206's refutation of a link that was cited for INFORMATIVE purposes. My question to you all is why SHOULD I respond when 206 thought it was a laughing matter and dind't show me ANY respect from the gates? Do you honestly believe I am going to refute anything he is saying when his FIRST response to the link was "ROTMFLMMFAO@the article you provided?"
No.
On another note...
I had this discussion with a friend of mine...and this is what SHE said to me about Noahs Ark....i cant prove anything she said nor do i BACK it by any means...im just repeating her thoughts on it....
"I feel it is a real story that got blown way out of proportion. Noah was a farmer, which means he would have goats,chickens and possibily a horse. In his scriptures(which I had no idea he had,but she claims they exsist) he wrote that he pissed of his neighbors(i didnt ask how nor have i looked it up) and they wanted him gone. He had a boat big enough to load up his few farm animals."
Thats all i got from her before i got dropped off....but its an interesting view of the story...
I had this discussion with a friend of mine...and this is what SHE said to me about Noahs Ark....i cant prove anything she said nor do i BACK it by any means...im just repeating her thoughts on it....
"I feel it is a real story that got blown way out of proportion. Noah was a farmer, which means he would have goats,chickens and possibily a horse. In his scriptures(which I had no idea he had,but she claims they exsist) he wrote that he pissed of his neighbors(i didnt ask how nor have i looked it up) and they wanted him gone. He had a boat big enough to load up his few farm animals."
Thats all i got from her before i got dropped off....but its an interesting view of the story...
And HERESY, keep in mind from the very start you said:
You posted a link, stated "You can dispute it if you want", which I did, asked you questions, which you back away from.
When it comes to spreading or promoting ignorance, I don't feel I have to be respectful. It's an attack on people's intelligence and I will call anyone on it. HERESY, I've always considered you one of the top members, and I still do, but in this thread, you're doing a lot of dancing and not defending your positions (in fact, you’re not even admitting what you do or do not believe). I’m not interested in tango lessons comrade, I’m interested in getting straight to the point.
You posted a link, stated "You can dispute it if you want", which I did, asked you questions, which you back away from.
When it comes to spreading or promoting ignorance, I don't feel I have to be respectful. It's an attack on people's intelligence and I will call anyone on it. HERESY, I've always considered you one of the top members, and I still do, but in this thread, you're doing a lot of dancing and not defending your positions (in fact, you’re not even admitting what you do or do not believe). I’m not interested in tango lessons comrade, I’m interested in getting straight to the point.
The most interesting aspect of Noah's Ark is that it is accepted by more than one religion. Even Greek mythology had stories of a flood that destroyed all of mankind save one man.
In Islamic tradition, there were 78 people aboard the Ark (the 8 from Christian tradition and 70 more) which would make the story much more feasible. The part of story that seems to be the most difficult to rationalize is what the animals ate after they were released from the Ark. There would almost no eatable vegetation after a flood of 40 days ( and many versions have the flood lasing much longer) and as I pointed out earlier, it takes months for most mammals to reproduce, and in that time the carnivorous animals would have eaten most of the other animals that did not starve from lack of food.
However, I think it was Oh Coy that pointed out, if you believe in God, it is entirely possible that this story is accurate. God is all powerful meaning that he could control what we consider fact or logic. If he can create life as we know it, I am sure building a huge wooden ship in a few days would not prove to be too much of a problem. However, if you are skeptical of God’s existence, and you base your judgments on human logic, this story does not seem logical at all.
I think we are all waiting for some elaboration on this statement.
In Islamic tradition, there were 78 people aboard the Ark (the 8 from Christian tradition and 70 more) which would make the story much more feasible. The part of story that seems to be the most difficult to rationalize is what the animals ate after they were released from the Ark. There would almost no eatable vegetation after a flood of 40 days ( and many versions have the flood lasing much longer) and as I pointed out earlier, it takes months for most mammals to reproduce, and in that time the carnivorous animals would have eaten most of the other animals that did not starve from lack of food.
However, I think it was Oh Coy that pointed out, if you believe in God, it is entirely possible that this story is accurate. God is all powerful meaning that he could control what we consider fact or logic. If he can create life as we know it, I am sure building a huge wooden ship in a few days would not prove to be too much of a problem. However, if you are skeptical of God’s existence, and you base your judgments on human logic, this story does not seem logical at all.
I think we are all waiting for some elaboration on this statement.
1. This was said BEFORE the link was EVER posted. Me saying "I believe it" had NOTHING to do with the information contained in that link. I said "I believe it" on page 2, and I gave you the link on page 4.
2. QUOTE THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. When I said I BELIEVE IT what was it in response to? It was in response to you saying, "Anyone who honestly believes in this shit is either A). A complete wackjob, B). Stupid as fuck or C). Mentally retarted", but what did I do? I replied with I BELIEVE IT and said you could have at least given us a D. all of the above.
How does "I BELIEVE IT" tie into the link I gave you when it has been clearly shown that I said I BELIEVE IT BEFORE the link was EVER posted and that the two have no relation to each other? :dead:
This is not what happened. I posted a link, YOU laughed, I said you can dispute it if you want and that the link was simply for insight (NOT THAT I BELIEVED THE LINK OR SUPPORTED THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR). Your FIRST response to the link being one of insight was:
With that being said you acknowledged the purpose of my link. You acknowledged that it was for insight, and according to you the link gave you insight on what type of people you are dealing with. Regardless of what you learned from the site your statement of "other than what type of people I'm dealing with here" proves that you knew what the link was intended for.
In the rest of the post you claimed:
In response to your first question, I suggested ONE method of finding out when it took place. That method pertained to biblical chronology, and it is a method many people have used to come up with a time table. Again, you LAUGHED at something else I told you to look into.
Also, you ask about how many animals were taken on board, but the author of the link already told you how many he thought were taken on board. Again, due to YOUR haste and eagerness to play "HA HA HA funny guy" you overlook the obvious. With that being said, why should I even bother to refute you when you are laughing and taking things for a joke?
Question of the day: If everything the link provided was a bunch of bs (these are YOUR WORDS) why are you hell bent on having me discuss it? In fact why are you discussing it? You already had the idea that it was bs long before you tried to refute it (refer to your FIRST response in regards to the link), so don't expect me to partake in something you yourself have no real interest in.
Ok, so with that being said from here on out my gloves are off, and I will start running shit through the ground and insulting others just because I have an OPINION on the spreading and promoting of ignorance. If you don't feel you have to be respectful, I don't feel I have to answer you or anyone else here. DEAL WITH IT.
I don't NEED to defend my position, because I am not debating any of you. I am doing a lot of dancing? Homie, go and look at your first two responses in regards to the link. IF YOU WANTED ME TO DEBATE THIS SUBJECT WITH YOU, YOUR POSTS AFTER THE LINK WAS POSTED WOULD HAVE PERTAINED TO THEM. INSTEAD, YOU RIDICULE THE LINK FOR 2 OR 3 POSTS--AND THEN DECIDE TO THROW A HISSY FIT WHEN I SAY I AM NOT DEBATING THE LINK AND PROVIDED PROOF THAT I NEVER INTENDED TO.
NEXT TIME, DON'T TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE A STAND UP COMEDIAN.
IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN GETTING STRAIGHT TO THE POINT YOU WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE LINK IN PROPER FASHION WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, YOU WOULD HAVE AT LEAST ATTEMPTED TO RESEARCH WHAT I SAID ABOUT BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED ABOUT HOW MANY ANIMALS WERE ON THE ARK, NOR WOULD YOU HAVE CONFUSED THE NUMBERS IN THE FASHION THAT YOU DID.
In closing if you can't give me enough respect (regardless of difference of opinions) and want to joke around, there is NO CHANCE IN HELL that I am going to discuss a link when I stated the purpose of the link well beforehand.
Call it dancing, call it whatever you like. Next time think before you reply with ha ha funny jokes.
2. QUOTE THE ENTIRE STATEMENT. When I said I BELIEVE IT what was it in response to? It was in response to you saying, "Anyone who honestly believes in this shit is either A). A complete wackjob, B). Stupid as fuck or C). Mentally retarted", but what did I do? I replied with I BELIEVE IT and said you could have at least given us a D. all of the above.
How does "I BELIEVE IT" tie into the link I gave you when it has been clearly shown that I said I BELIEVE IT BEFORE the link was EVER posted and that the two have no relation to each other? :dead:
This is not what happened. I posted a link, YOU laughed, I said you can dispute it if you want and that the link was simply for insight (NOT THAT I BELIEVED THE LINK OR SUPPORTED THE VIEWS OF THE AUTHOR). Your FIRST response to the link being one of insight was:
With that being said you acknowledged the purpose of my link. You acknowledged that it was for insight, and according to you the link gave you insight on what type of people you are dealing with. Regardless of what you learned from the site your statement of "other than what type of people I'm dealing with here" proves that you knew what the link was intended for.
In the rest of the post you claimed:
In response to your first question, I suggested ONE method of finding out when it took place. That method pertained to biblical chronology, and it is a method many people have used to come up with a time table. Again, you LAUGHED at something else I told you to look into.
Also, you ask about how many animals were taken on board, but the author of the link already told you how many he thought were taken on board. Again, due to YOUR haste and eagerness to play "HA HA HA funny guy" you overlook the obvious. With that being said, why should I even bother to refute you when you are laughing and taking things for a joke?
Question of the day: If everything the link provided was a bunch of bs (these are YOUR WORDS) why are you hell bent on having me discuss it? In fact why are you discussing it? You already had the idea that it was bs long before you tried to refute it (refer to your FIRST response in regards to the link), so don't expect me to partake in something you yourself have no real interest in.
Ok, so with that being said from here on out my gloves are off, and I will start running shit through the ground and insulting others just because I have an OPINION on the spreading and promoting of ignorance. If you don't feel you have to be respectful, I don't feel I have to answer you or anyone else here. DEAL WITH IT.
I don't NEED to defend my position, because I am not debating any of you. I am doing a lot of dancing? Homie, go and look at your first two responses in regards to the link. IF YOU WANTED ME TO DEBATE THIS SUBJECT WITH YOU, YOUR POSTS AFTER THE LINK WAS POSTED WOULD HAVE PERTAINED TO THEM. INSTEAD, YOU RIDICULE THE LINK FOR 2 OR 3 POSTS--AND THEN DECIDE TO THROW A HISSY FIT WHEN I SAY I AM NOT DEBATING THE LINK AND PROVIDED PROOF THAT I NEVER INTENDED TO.
NEXT TIME, DON'T TAKE IT UPON YOURSELF TO BE A STAND UP COMEDIAN.
IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN GETTING STRAIGHT TO THE POINT YOU WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE LINK IN PROPER FASHION WHEN IT WAS FIRST POSTED, YOU WOULD HAVE AT LEAST ATTEMPTED TO RESEARCH WHAT I SAID ABOUT BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED ABOUT HOW MANY ANIMALS WERE ON THE ARK, NOR WOULD YOU HAVE CONFUSED THE NUMBERS IN THE FASHION THAT YOU DID.
In closing if you can't give me enough respect (regardless of difference of opinions) and want to joke around, there is NO CHANCE IN HELL that I am going to discuss a link when I stated the purpose of the link well beforehand.
Call it dancing, call it whatever you like. Next time think before you reply with ha ha funny jokes.
Wow, you're going to type all of that simply because I posted a "lmao" at the link you posted? Sorry comrade, I found it humorous that you posted a link, rather than offer any of your original thoughts, and honestly I felt the article was a joke. My apologies for laughing. If you feel insulted, my bad, deal with it, but don't use it as a lame excuse to ignore and back down from the topic. I'll take this as an "I refuse to debate the topic at hand because I cannot."
I will only address a couple of things that you said because the reset is a complete waste of time and has nothing to do with the topic (it will turn into days of a quote war about who said what and what we both interpreted them to mean)
You saying “I believe in it” as in “I believe in Noah’s Ark”, which is what I’m TRYING to get you to discuss. I don’t give a fuck about some author; I’m trying to have the conversation with you and the rest of the sicc. Sorry, but I assumed you at the very least agreed with some of the article, after all you posted it. If someone asked me about the Russian Revolution, I wouldn’t post an article from newsmax.com. And if I am refuting what the author has to say, openly in the GOM forum, so what? Remember you asked, “Can you tell me why the link didn't give you insight?” I did, I told you what was wrong with it, issues he did not address, and YES, I admittedly fucked up on the exact numbers, but that is beside the point. It doesn’t mean shit other than I misread that part of the article.
So you agree that you’re refusing to discuss the topic? Ok, we have that settled. HERESY does not want to discuss Noah’s Ark.
All because I lolled at your link? HERESY has become quite sensitive! Again, my fuckin bad comrade, I will not lol at your link (although you’ve lolled at mines in the past)
I call it avoiding the topic.
I will only address a couple of things that you said because the reset is a complete waste of time and has nothing to do with the topic (it will turn into days of a quote war about who said what and what we both interpreted them to mean)
You saying “I believe in it” as in “I believe in Noah’s Ark”, which is what I’m TRYING to get you to discuss. I don’t give a fuck about some author; I’m trying to have the conversation with you and the rest of the sicc. Sorry, but I assumed you at the very least agreed with some of the article, after all you posted it. If someone asked me about the Russian Revolution, I wouldn’t post an article from newsmax.com. And if I am refuting what the author has to say, openly in the GOM forum, so what? Remember you asked, “Can you tell me why the link didn't give you insight?” I did, I told you what was wrong with it, issues he did not address, and YES, I admittedly fucked up on the exact numbers, but that is beside the point. It doesn’t mean shit other than I misread that part of the article.
So you agree that you’re refusing to discuss the topic? Ok, we have that settled. HERESY does not want to discuss Noah’s Ark.
All because I lolled at your link? HERESY has become quite sensitive! Again, my fuckin bad comrade, I will not lol at your link (although you’ve lolled at mines in the past)
I call it avoiding the topic.