Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:57 AM
37 online now:
Coragyps, frako, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Tanypteryx, Taq (7 members, 30 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,015 Year: 9,051/19,786 Month: 1,473/2,119 Week: 233/576 Day: 36/98 Hour: 10/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 136 of 306 (240826)
09-06-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Steve8
09-06-2005 12:36 PM


Re: Quite possible?
In what way to you find AiG's scholarship very poor?

Pick anything you like from AIG, make it a PNT (keep it focussed and clear), give your own interpretation of exactly what they are saying and you might get some answers to that question.

Pick something that is "scholarship" in your opinion and that you think is at least one of the better ones.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 12:36 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Steve8, posted 09-08-2005 12:39 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 306 (240827)
09-06-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Thugpreacha
09-06-2005 3:21 AM


Re: Quite possible?
I'm sorry, your link does not appear to work. Brian the admin. already told me not to use links even though he sent one himself to me! So I'm waiting on his reply to explain the policy more. I'm new to a website like this. I ask for your patience!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Thugpreacha, posted 09-06-2005 3:21 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 1:31 PM Steve8 has responded
 Message 140 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:50 PM Steve8 has responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 138 of 306 (240833)
09-06-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Steve8
09-06-2005 12:55 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I'm sorry, your link does not appear to work. Brian the admin. already told me not to use links even though he sent one himself to me! So I'm waiting on his reply to explain the policy more. I'm new to a website like this. I ask for your patience!

Steve, you weren't adminished for using a link. You were told to discuss the information provided in the link. Simply throwing links back and forth with no actual input from the posters does not constitute a discussion. Just talk about any links you provide.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 12:55 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 2:20 PM Rahvin has responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 306 (240840)
09-06-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rahvin
09-06-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I gave him the link that was a specific answer to a specific question he asked...however, I can cut and paste if need be. I'm just not the fastest typewriter in the world lol, and the replies come in here thick and fast!!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 1:31 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:52 PM Steve8 has responded
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 3:12 PM Steve8 has responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 306 (240842)
09-06-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Steve8
09-06-2005 12:55 PM


On using links
Links can be used, sometimes effectively to support or refute a position.

But we are here to discuss things together. You are expected to make your case in your own words, using links only in support. In many cases more than just a link may be required, something to point to the particular part or portion of the link that you consider significant.

The overall argument though should be from you, in your own words.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 12:55 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 9:50 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 306 (240843)
09-06-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Steve8
09-06-2005 2:20 PM


Cut & Paste
will draw down the wrath of the administrators even faster than arguing by links.

Cut & Paste of sections, like links, should only be used to support or refute a position. It is up to you, in your own words, to make an argument.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 2:20 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 9:51 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 142 of 306 (240845)
09-06-2005 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Steve8
09-06-2005 2:20 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I gave him the link that was a specific answer to a specific question he asked...however, I can cut and paste if need be. I'm just not the fastest typewriter in the world lol, and the replies come in here thick and fast!!

That's fine, but I think the admins (and the rest of the board members) would appreciate actual contribution from the poster instead of a link with no additional commentary. Even if the info in the link is straightforward.

As for typing quickly - Don't worry about it. I, and many other posters I'm sure, have been known to take a very long time to type a well-reasoned response, occasionally taking an hour or more of typing and research. The content of your posts is what's important, not how many you make or how quickly you respond. It's okay to slow down and make a longer post that better describes your point and provides evidence to support it. That approach is far more appreciated than a quick response.

As to the link you provided - it's not a direct link to refutations, it's a link to a site that contains refutations of a variety of evolutionis claims. I took the time to read one of them, and I find the article to be sorely lacking in merit.

For instance:

quote:
Isaak: “If these were laid down during the flood, how did they reach their present height, and when were the valleys between them eroded away?”

Answer: By rapid uplift, because of catastrophic plate tectonic movement and because the sediments were not yet consolidated.


This is absolute drivel. Catastrophic plate tectonics are a load of crap - the energy required to perform several billion years worth of geologic change in only a few thousand years is so astronomically high that a global Flood would be the least of the problems for the survival of life, or even the continued existance of the planet.

We have other threads for these topics (the global flood and catastrophic plate tectonics), but it is fact that the Flood myth is exactly that - a myth. In fact, it's an exxagerrated retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was actually about a large but local flood.

As to the point you were talking about, regarding the amount of animals present on the Ark:

quote:
Creationists have long pointed out that the biblical “kind” was broader than today’s “species”. Sorting and loss of the already existing genetic information has resulted in all the “species” we have today (this is not evolution, which requires new genes and new information). The article Ligers and Wholphins: What Next? (Creation 22(3):28–33, June–August 2000 ) covers the extent of the biblical “kinds” in more detail. This article shows that many so-called different species and genera can actually interbreed and produce fertile offspring, showing that they are really a single polytypic biological species. And animals that can hybridise, at least up to fertilisation, are members of the same created kind. Thus Noah would have needed comparatively few “kinds” of land vertebrate. Woodmorappe assumes that each “kind”would be the ancestor of all “species” in a modern “genus”, so only about 16,000 animals would have been on board. And this assumption is generous to the evolutionists — the article Ligers and Wholphins shows that many “kinds” could even each be the ancestors of a whole “family”; if so, then only 2000 animals would have been required on board.

The article actually refutes the Flood by itself! 2000 animals, the lowest number given, could not survive in a 450 foot long boat for over a year. There is not enough food or space - it's frankly not possible. As to the number itself - the author shows his lack of knowledge of evolution by claiming that 2000 animals could somehow be the common ancestors of all existing creatures, given only a few thousand years to branch out among "kinds."

So, he believes in the possibility of evolution to account for new "species" within "kinds," (kinds not being defined, of course), but that somehow there was no evolution before this event. Not to mention that 4000 years or so is nowhere near enough time to evolve from 2000 progenitor animals into the biodiversity we see today - there simply isn't enough time.

And then we get into the issue of natural habitat: how does a Koala from Australia somehow manage to be present on an Ark in the middle east?! How do the various species native to South America, or North America, or Antarctica manage to not only get to the Ark, but then survive in the same conditions as all of the other species? A penguin isn't going to live long in the same conditions as a lion, and vice versa.

To wrap this up, I'm not sure what part of that site you were referencing, but what I've seen is absolute rubbish. Posting links is well and good, but please let us know more specifically what you're talking about so that your actual point can be discussed.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 2:20 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 10:50 PM Rahvin has responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 306 (240941)
09-06-2005 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by AdminJar
09-06-2005 2:50 PM


Re: On using links
Thanks for the tips.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:50 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 306 (240942)
09-06-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by AdminJar
09-06-2005 2:52 PM


Re: Cut & Paste
Thanks for the tip.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by AdminJar, posted 09-06-2005 2:52 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 306 (240944)
09-06-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Rahvin
09-06-2005 3:12 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Thanks for the advice re. typing...
Sorry if my link was not directly to the question I was trying to address...I had pasted it from my browser...not sure why it wasn't the exact page...anyway...

Re. change in the plates...you really think having the whole Earth completely covered with water would not affect the plates in significant ways?? Though I would certainly not argue that everything re. plate tectonics has been fully understood (I don't think even an evolutionist would say so either actually), I have read plenty to conclude creationists may be onto something...don't see any harm on everyone working from their own perspectives to see what comes up.

Either way, not sure anyone can be dogmatic about it at this point. More work to do yet on both sides to understand tectonics.

Re. mountain uplift, marine fossils have been found on Mt. Everest's peak so it seems to me anything's possible. Of course, you are assuming that it takes several billions of years worth of energy to make geologic changes necessary in a few thousand years...another assumption YEC's don't hold to... I have to say, the doctrine of uniformitarianism that evolutionists tend to believe, really does seem to blind them to other possibilities. It wouldn't be the first time evolutionists got their time estimates for things to happen wrong.

Re. the location for the animals, I don't think any creationist would seriously argue that the land masses, their flora and fauna, or even the climate would be the same pre-Flood vs. post-Flood. Perhaps there was only one land mass pre-Flood? So who knows what the distances involved were? There is another answer at the end of the article you linked for me that addresses your issue re. Koalas etc....surprised you missed it...actually I'm not really, as it assumes a creationist position which you don't hold to. That's one of the things I've learned about this debate as a former atheistic evolutionist myself...in order to understand the opposing camp's views, you must accept ALL of their presuppositions first (however temporarily or permanently)...only then can you see their logic...without that, you're always groping in the dark.
It has been proven (most recently in last Christmas' tsunami) that animals will tend to flee from areas where inclement weather is coming before the effects of weather can be felt by us. So this notion that at least two of each of the animals could not congregate in the same area of their own accord is a little ungenerous to animals. Not saying they knew where the Ark was, but that where the Ark was may have been the last place to be affected by the global change causing the Flood. That's not even bringing God into it, which would also be a possibility.
Re. the Epic of Gilgamesh...if you have two documents about a Flood...assuming they are both talking about the same event, where one describes a seaworthy vessel, the other one describes one which is not seaworthy...which one is more likely to have been written first?? On that basis, most historians would say the former because the other is probably a corrupt version of the first...the Biblical account is the one with a seaworthy vessel (the only one out of all of the world-wide Flood stories, so far as I know).
Re. animal kinds, as a creationist, I have never questioned microevolution (evolution within a 'kind' e.g. birds changing into other breeds of birds, dogs changing into other breeds of dogs), only macroevolution (evolution from one 'kind' to another i.e. reptiles to mammals etc.)... after all, in your quote there, ligers are still cats, wholphins are still aquatic mammals.
I suppose I could go on but as you have pointed out there are other threads for this topic, perhaps I should drop this here and pick it up elsewhere. It is a big topic in itself.

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 09-07-2005 11:26 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Rahvin, posted 09-06-2005 3:12 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Nighttrain, posted 09-07-2005 4:29 AM Steve8 has responded
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 09-07-2005 12:26 PM Steve8 has not yet responded
 Message 158 by Nuggin, posted 09-07-2005 2:05 PM Steve8 has responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2158 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 146 of 306 (240959)
09-07-2005 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Steve8
09-06-2005 10:50 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Steve,Steve,Steve, not to be patronising, but did it ever occur to you that we evos might not be starting from scratch. That your ideas might not have been covered extensively in the past in EvC? That you are trotting out the same rubbish we have effectively debunked many times. Do a search of EvC, or try to come up with a new twist instead of regurgitating AIG, etc.tosh that hasn`t improved in decades. That has been proven wrong and that they never have the decency to correct or remove from their websites. If you were an atheistic evolutionist in the past, you must have had a shallow knowledge of evo arguments to ever go to the Dark Side.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 10:50 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:31 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3124 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 147 of 306 (240961)
09-07-2005 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Steve8
09-06-2005 12:36 PM


Re: Quite possible?
In what way to you find AiG's scholarship very poor? (I realise that many evolutionists generally regard creationists as nutcases simply because they don't believe in evolution...I need more evidence to come to that conclusion).

I personally do not discuss the creation/evolution debate, I have probably made about 10 replies on science threads in the 2000 plus posts I have made here.

I am not scientist, but if you wish to pick any essay on AiG that relates to the Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern history, or Near Eastern archaeology then we can start a new thread to discuss its merits.

I will give one example just to demonstrate why I have such a low opinion of AiG.

From here

Little is known about the Pharaoh Neferhotep I. Some biblical historians believe he may be the king who persecuted the Hebrews and under whose anti-Jewish reign the exodus occurred.

The quality of writing in this essay is rank amateur. Who would write an essay without giving any references to support everything that they claim? The author states that 'some biblical historians believe....' but the author doesn't say who any of the 'some' historians are! How do we know that any historian claimed this if the author doesn't tell us where to check the validity of the information given. To leave out a reference like this is quite a serious flaw, and it is something that anyone writing at High School would be marked down for.

This lack of referencing runs right through the essay:

Critics use the pyramids to claim the Bible can’t be right.

Do they? How do we know this as the essay does not name a single one of these 'critics'?

They say the pyramids were built long before Noah’s Flood, so the Flood must have only been a local affair,

Who says this? How do we know anyone has made this claim?

Not global like the Bible says.

Does the Bible say it was a global flood?

Otherwise, the pyramids would be buried under lots of sediment.

Why would they? Why don't we have a reference here to support this?

Some have even wondered if the technology was supplied by aliens.

Have they? Any chance of a name to go on?

I hope you get what I mean, it is not a good standard of scholarship to write in this way, the author has hardly supported a thing that he has written. If this was a high school essay it would barely pass assessing.

Re. links, I believe you gave me one the other day...why are some links ok and not others?

The one I gave you the other day was a reply to a request about the mutilation of the Old Testament by Christians, you asked for a few examples and the link I gave you was to another discussion on this forum that addressed this issue. When a link to another thread on this site is given, normally you would be expected to discuss any objections on the thread that you were linked to. This helps to keep each thread on topic.

Linking to an off-site page and not providing any real input of your own does not really instigate any discussion. For example, I could refute your AiG link with a link to another website, but where is the discussion?

Normally, you would use a link to support an argument that you have constructed yourself.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 12:36 PM Steve8 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 1:07 PM Brian has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 148 of 306 (241039)
09-07-2005 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Steve8
09-06-2005 10:50 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Thanks for the advice re. typing...

No problem. You may also want to check out this thread, as it helps explain all of the formatting options the board uses. It helps make posts easier to read, and makes quotes of other posters more obvious.

Sorry if my link was not directly to the question I was trying to address...I had pasted it from my browser...not sure why it wasn't the exact page...anyway...

If you can give us the link once more and mention what specific section you are addressing, as well as your own argument that the link supports, we could discuss it further.

Re. change in the plates...you really think having the whole Earth completely covered with water would not affect the plates in significant ways?? Though I would certainly not argue that everything re. plate tectonics has been fully understood (I don't think even an evolutionist would say so either actually), I have read plenty to conclude creationists may be onto something...don't see any harm on everyone working from their own perspectives to see what comes up. Either way, not sure anyone can be dogmatic about it at this point. More work to do yet on both sides to understand tectonics.
Re. mountain uplift, marine fossils have been found on Mt. Everest's peak so it seems to me anything's possible. Of course, you are assuming that it takes several billions of years worth of energy to make geologic changes necessary in a few thousand years...another assumption YEC's don't hold to... I have to say, the doctrine of uniformitarianism that evolutionists tend to believe, really does seem to blind them to other possibilities. It wouldn't be the first time evolutionists got their time estimates for things to happen wrong.

As I said, catastrophic plate tectonics is absolute drivel. I think I'll start a new thread on it once I figure out how to do some of the necessary math to show exactly how bad the idea is, but suffice it to say that any scenario that involves moving the crust of the Earth to the degree we see in the geologic record would require massive amounts of energy. Expending that much energy over the course of a year-long Flood would cause disasters that make a global Flood look like child's play. A wooden boat, even if it were possible to contain the animals required, would never survive, let alone anything else. I'll work on getting some actual numbers instead of my own simple estimates, but I'll at least mention the non-physics issues here.

To quote an article on the subject at talkorigins:

quote:
1 Much geological evidence is incompatible with catastrophic plate tectonics:

* Island chains, such as the Hawaiian islands, indicate that the ocean floor moved slowly over erupting "hot spots." Radiometric dating and relative amounts of erosion both indicate that the older islands are very much older, not close to the same age as catastrophic tectonics would require.
* Catastrophic plate tectonics says that all ocean floor should be essentially the same age. But both radiometric dating and amounts of sedimentation indicate that the age changes gradually, from brand new to tens of millions of years old.
* As sea-floor basalt cools, it becomes denser and sinks. The elevation of sea floors is consistent with cooling appropriate for its age, assuming gradual spreading.
* Guyots are flat-topped underwater mountains. The tops were eroded flat from a long time at the ocean surface, and they sank with the sea floor. Catastrophic tectonics does not allow enough time for the sea mountain to form, erode, and sink.
* Runaway subduction does not account for continent-continent collisions, such as between India and the Eurasian plate.

2 Catastrophic plate tectonics has no plausible mechanism. In particular, the greatly lowered viscosity of the mantle, the rapid magnetic reversals, and the sudden cooling of the ocean floor afterwards cannot be explained under conventional physics.

3 Conventional plate tectonics accounts for the evidence already and does a much better job of it. It explains innumerable details that catastrophic plate tectonics cannot, such as why there is gold in California, silver in Nevada, salt flats in Utah, and coal in Pennsylvania (McPhee 1998). It requires no extraordinary mechanisms to do so. Catastrophic plate tectonics would be a giant step backwards in the progress of science.


As I said, if I can find a way to get a mathematical estimate of the actual energies required under CPT and apply those effects, I'll start a new thread exclusively on the topic. But CPT is, frankly, even more rediculous than the Flood itself.

Re. the location for the animals, I don't think any creationist would seriously argue that the land masses, their flora and fauna, or even the climate would be the same pre-Flood vs. post-Flood. Perhaps there was only one land mass pre-Flood? So who knows what the distances involved were? There is another answer at the end of the article you linked for me that addresses your issue re. Koalas etc....surprised you missed it...actually I'm not really, as it assumes a creationist position which you don't hold to. That's one of the things I've learned about this debate as a former atheistic evolutionist myself...in order to understand the opposing camp's views, you must accept ALL of their presuppositions first (however temporarily or permanently)...only then can you see their logic...without that, you're always groping in the dark.
It has been proven (most recently in last Christmas' tsunami) that animals will tend to flee from areas where inclement weather is coming before the effects of weather can be felt by us. So this notion that at least two of each of the animals could not congregate in the same area of their own accord is a little ungenerous to animals. Not saying they knew where the Ark was, but that where the Ark was may have been the last place to be affected by the global change causing the Flood. That's not even bringing God into it, which would also be a possibility.

Who knows what the distances involved were? You're arguing from ignorance, my friend, and that's a logical fallacy. You can't argue with "who knows." As for your suggestion that animals fled before the disaster, and happened to have two of every "kind" at the Arks construction site, that's simply not plausable. How much warning do you think the animals had? They seem to pick up on such things before we do, but not months or years in advance. If we are talking even about just the African continent, it would take months or years for even fast animals to travel from one end to the other. If we assume some sort of Pangea single-continent model to account for geographically unique species like Koalas, the distances are even greater. The local fauna in Asia did not know of the oncoming tsunami months in advance.

Re. the Epic of Gilgamesh...if you have two documents about a Flood...assuming they are both talking about the same event, where one describes a seaworthy vessel, the other one describes one which is not seaworthy...which one is more likely to have been written first?? On that basis, most historians would say the former because the other is probably a corrupt version of the first...the Biblical account is the one with a seaworthy vessel (the only one out of all of the world-wide Flood stories, so far as I know).

That's hardly a good method for determining the authenticity of a story. If I write about how someone survived Hurricane Katrina, and somebody takes my story and embellishes it to say that the character survived a flood that covered the whole world in a canoe, does the canoe story somehow seem more relaistic just becuase the vessel was an actual type of boat? In no way does the "seaworthiness" of hte vessel show the authenticity of a story! I find it much more plausible that the GIlgamesh story, since it predates the oldest Biblical texts we have, and since it describes an event that could have actually happened without breaking the laws of physics, is far more likely to be based on truth.

Re. animal kinds, as a creationist, I have never questioned microevolution (evolution within a 'kind' e.g. birds changing into other breeds of birds, dogs changing into other breeds of dogs), only macroevolution (evolution from one 'kind' to another i.e. reptiles to mammals etc.)... after all, in your quote there, ligers are still cats, wholphins are still aquatic mammals.

And what mechanism stops "microevolution" from turning into "macroevolution?" There is a thread going on about this subject right now - if you post there, I'll discuss it with you in the appropriate thread.

While we are getting a bit off-topic, I think we can tie this back to the subject of this thread by saying that some of the events of the Bible simply could not have happened barring a miraculous coverup of evidence. Since the literal truth of some Bible stories is absolutely false, it's foolish to read the Bible as the literal Word of God.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Steve8, posted 09-06-2005 10:50 PM Steve8 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 09-07-2005 12:48 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 149 of 306 (241046)
09-07-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rahvin
09-07-2005 12:26 PM


Even Funnier.
steve8 writes:

It has been proven (most recently in last Christmas' tsunami) that animals will tend to flee from areas where inclement weather is coming before the effects of weather can be felt by us. So this notion that at least two of each of the animals could not congregate in the same area of their own accord is a little ungenerous to animals.

This just gets funnier and funnier. Now we have the Kolas humping their way from Australia all the way to the middles east, carting along their supply of Eucalyptus leaves, queuing up to get on the boat only to see all but two of the little critters turned away, standing by the railing waving fond farewell to those left weeping on the shore.

After the Ark lands they say farewell to all the friends they made on the voyage, give an interview to the reporters on how extreme the storm was and how they are thankful for salvation, then begin the long journey back to Oz.

If that don't make a movie to set Titanic boxoffice nothing will. I can see the lead male Koala now, on the prow of the boat leaning out into the maelstrom.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rahvin, posted 09-07-2005 12:26 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 09-07-2005 1:06 PM jar has responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1808 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 150 of 306 (241051)
09-07-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by jar
09-07-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Even Funnier.
Now we have the Kolas humping their way from Australia all the way to...

Hey Jar, I know we're separated by a common language, but I've got this Koala image in my head that won't go away now... perhaps they'd been told there was to be no sex on the Ark so they were getting plenty in before the departure date ;)

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-07-2005 12:07 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jar, posted 09-07-2005 12:48 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by jar, posted 09-07-2005 1:10 PM cavediver has responded

Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019