Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence for a recent flood
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 166 of 404 (641983)
11-24-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 12:22 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
The first recorded proof the universe and the earth are billions of years old is in Genesis - even before the notion of 'billions' was yet known by humanity.
How many years account for seperation of light and darkness; day and night; water and land? These actions are listed in Genesis before the advent of life occured and before the Hebrew calendar was given.
A lie by omission is - surprise, surprise - a lie.
Has this something to do with the date of the flood?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 12:22 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 3:00 PM Coyote has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 404 (641984)
11-24-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Coyote
11-24-2011 2:52 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
The flood has not been proven with hard copy such as relics, however, that it is ancient is attested by writings from other ancient nations in the same vicinity. We have no proof of Adam either, however it remains the oldest recorded name as 5772 years old - this gives it a measure of credibility which stands until disproven by an earlier recorded name. The same applies to the first recorded king being Nimrod - asking to disprove this is not a call to prove a negative - it is a call to disprove a positive.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 2:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 3:05 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 168 of 404 (641985)
11-24-2011 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 3:00 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
The flood has not been proven with hard copy such as relics, however, that it is ancient is attested by writings from other ancient nations in the same vicinity. We have no proof of Adam either, however it remains the oldest recorded name as 5772 years old...
So you would place the flood at perhaps a thousand years or so after 5772 years ago?
Now we're getting somewhere.
Next, is the flood local, regional, or global?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 3:00 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 3:11 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 169 of 404 (641986)
11-24-2011 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Coyote
11-24-2011 3:05 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
quote:
So you would place the flood at perhaps a thousand years or so after 5772 years ago?
Now we're getting somewhere.
Next, is the flood local, regional, or global?
That answer I am not sure about, but I can say it is ancient. The bible period ended 2,200 years ago [Christianity and Islam being replacement theologies which posit previous, ancient writings], so all history before this date is ancient history. The flood, according to the correct reading of the texts and its factual evidences of such, as well as the evidenced negation of global flood, describes a regional flood only.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 3:05 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Son, posted 11-25-2011 11:41 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(4)
Message 170 of 404 (641996)
11-24-2011 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 12:14 PM


Re: CHECK MATE.
Genesis is more than one sentence.
Just because you can take one part of sentence and make it sound scientific does not mean the rest of the document is scientific. Genesis is 50 chapters of text. Do you really think quoting one word from one sentence makes the entire book scientific?
The information you have provided is also quote mined. The full quote is -
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This loses any scientific credibility as soon as a supernatural being is introduced.
I dealt with your claim here Message 17. In that thread I supplied several earlier texts from other religions that mention the beginning. Using your logic, they are also science. And so are the following -
"a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"
Star Wars is science because there are some galaxies far away.
"Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones.
They're the modern stone age family.
From the town of Bedrock,
They're a page right out of history."
The Flintstones is science because it correctly buts these people into the stone age.
"Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is..."
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy is science because this statement is scientifically accurate.
"garedle san bipple gron kijefrrepp quark yoble yoble row slek trigno sheppled"
That sentence is pure gibberish. But it is also science because it has the word ''quark" in it.
You should try thinking before you post things.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 12:14 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 7:54 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 171 of 404 (641997)
11-24-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Butterflytyrant
11-24-2011 7:15 PM


Re: CHECK MATE.
quote:
The information you have provided is also quote mined. The full quote is -
Genesis 1:1 - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This loses any scientific credibility as soon as a supernatural being is introduced.
You mean as with Einstein - its not what he says but what he maybe is?
quote:
I dealt with your claim here Message 17. In that thread I supplied several earlier texts from other religions that mention the beginning. Using your logic, they are also science. And so are the following -
"a long time ago in a galaxy far far away"
Star Wars is science because there are some galaxies far away.
That quote is scientific in galaxies being far awayl star wars is not. The verse in Genesis is wholly scientific; it says the galaxies and the earth had a beginning. To boot it is the first recording which not only makes that statement, but also the first time such a thought was made. You cannot show a similar item even 1500 years after that date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-24-2011 7:15 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-24-2011 8:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(1)
Message 172 of 404 (641999)
11-24-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
How about you try to answer the questions.
This is the statement from my message - If we have this estimated date, we can look for evidence of this flood whether it was global or regional.
Your reply - Dated historical archives mention the flood, evidencing it occured.
I see how you have supplied some words there. I also see that they do not actually answer the question. Notice the distict lack of a date in your answer. You seem to believe that you work from the one correct version of the Old Testament (although you wont mention which one in order to avoid any scrutiny) and you seem to believe that you alone are the only one who can correctly interpret the scripture. You claim that the Old Testament contains a complete diarised calendar of events. Given this information, you (in your mind at least) are likley the only person who has ever lived who can actually supply the correct date.
So supply the date of Noahs flood. When did the rain start and how long was the region inundated?
Question from my post - If we have a region, we can examine this region to see if a regional flood would be plausible for that area.
your reply - The region is around Mount Ararat, a land mark mentioned for the first time, with aerial view location accuracy.
Can you provide the scripture to support this? Also, 'around Mount Ararat' is a bit unspecific. Giving the highest point in the area as the central location of a flood is a bit illogical. You do know that water runs downhill dont you? Was the flood 100 km around this area? 1000 km maybe? How big was this regional flood? Did it reach as far north east as Sevan Lake or as far South East as Lake Van?
With this information we can examine the claim.
Try as hard as you can to actually answer those two questions.
Before you post your reply, read what you have written and see if it actually answers the questions.
The first answer will contain some dates. They will be numbers.
The second answer will contain some scripture advising of the location of the flood. It will also contain a description of the region that was flooded. Latitude and longitude coordinates would be great. Landmarks that were the borders of the flooded region will suffice.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 12:28 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:11 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 404 (642000)
11-24-2011 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Butterflytyrant
11-24-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
quote:
You do know that water runs downhill dont you? Was the flood 100 km around this area? 1000 km maybe? How big was this regional flood? Did it reach as far north east as Sevan Lake or as far South East as Lake Van?
Mount Ararat is introduced for the first time, in its correct geographical location; the surrounding names of ancient countries also listed confirms the applicable region. But I won't indulge you in nonsense questions just because you find it unacceptable that Genesis, what you and many others like to refer to as myth and fable, is in fact correct as no other writings is. You should be clapping hands at Genesis instead of ignoringits bounty of stats and frog leaping to nonesense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-24-2011 8:04 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-24-2011 9:16 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


(2)
Message 174 of 404 (642003)
11-24-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 7:54 PM


off topic bullshit
You mean as with Einstein - its not what he says but what he maybe is?
Does that make sense on your planet?
That quote is scientific in galaxies being far awayl star wars is not. The verse in Genesis is wholly scientific; it says the galaxies and the earth had a beginning.
Your quote may be scientific. Genesis is not.
To boot it is the first recording which not only makes that statement, but also the first time such a thought was made. You cannot show a similar item even 1500 years after that date.
Now you claim to know when the first thought about something occured??? Your claims reach further into fantasy every time you post. Not only have I shown that your claim is not true, I have shown it with 9 examples from various regions and periods in the Great Debate here - Message 17.
Your claims are off topic bullshit. If you want to defend your claim, try doing it in the thread specifically created for your to do so.
This thread is 'Evidence for a recent flood'. Unless you find a topic titled 'thread for IamJoseph to make random bullshit claims and generally rave about any lunacy he wants' please make an attempt to further the topic.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 7:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:54 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 404 (642004)
11-24-2011 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Butterflytyrant
11-24-2011 8:36 PM


Re: off topic bullshit
quote:
This thread is 'Evidence for a recent flood'.
Correct historical icons and contemporary nations, and cross reportings from independent nations, is scientific evidence. No one has doubted the flood; only its size is questioned.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Butterflytyrant, posted 11-24-2011 8:36 PM Butterflytyrant has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 9:00 PM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 9:02 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 176 of 404 (642005)
11-24-2011 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 8:54 PM


Not just off topic bullshit but irrelevant bullshit as well
Present the evidence for the flood, a flood, several floods, but present some evidence. So far all you have presented is unsupported irrelevant unrelated nonsense.
If it was a local flood, present the bounds of the flood, the actual evidence for that flood/

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 9:10 PM jar has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 177 of 404 (642006)
11-24-2011 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 8:54 PM


Doubting the flood
No one has doubted the flood; only its size is questioned.
The flood as described in the bible never happened.
Only by twisting things around to make it a little trickle of a flood can you argue there was such a flood, and by then it doesn't match the biblical myth.
But at least we agree that the mythical flood was recent, eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:54 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 9:13 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 181 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 9:20 PM Coyote has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 178 of 404 (642007)
11-24-2011 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by jar
11-24-2011 9:00 PM


Re: Not just off topic bullshit but irrelevant bullshit as well
All of archeology, a faculty of science, makes its findings in accordance with the applicable period. Usually, one single cross reference or indicator is accepted as proof. A geneology with authentic names, a listing of ancient nations which are no more but known to be authentic, a reference from another independent nation, a diarised calendar - this is big time proof. Otherwise you can demand proof that stars are bigger than golf balls too - and I could not satisfy you.
We know that there is zero proof of the Gospels for example - but it is accepted by more than 50% of humanity. Compare it with Genesis and what have you got? With the Noah story, we are talking about a period when writings, perhaps also language, never existed accept for a most meagre form. The debate about a regional or global flood cannot be misconstrued as a debate of a flood's veracity here. The proof of Abraham is monotheism and a geneaology listing, along with critical icons of its period.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 9:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 11-24-2011 9:22 PM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3669 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 179 of 404 (642008)
11-24-2011 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Coyote
11-24-2011 9:02 PM


Re: Doubting the flood
quote:
The flood as described in the bible never happened.
This refers only to the flood size. You agree it is a factual flood by default by questioning its dating as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 9:02 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Coyote, posted 11-24-2011 9:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4422 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 180 of 404 (642009)
11-24-2011 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by IamJoseph
11-24-2011 8:11 PM


Re: Lets take the initiative
Mount Ararat is introduced for the first time, in its correct geographical location; the surrounding names of ancient countries also listed confirms the applicable region.
repeating the same claim without supporting evidence does not make it any more true. It just makes you look like a parrot.
here is a chunk from wiki discussing Mount Ararat -
quote:
Ararat - The Bible says that Noah's ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. This does not refer to any specific mountain or peak, but rather a mountain range within the region of Ararat, which was the name of an ancient proto-Armenian kingdom also known as Urartu.[6] Nonetheless, one particular tradition identifies the mountain as Mount Masis, the highest peak in the Armenian Highland, which is therefore called Mount Ararat.[6] (As opposed to the Armenian and European tradition, Semitic tradition identifies the mountain as Judi Dagh located in Turkey near Cizre.)[note 1] According to the medieval Armenian historian Moses of Khoren in his History of Armenia, the plain of Ayrarat (directly north of the mountain) got its name after King Ara the Handsome[7] (the great grandson of Amasya). Here the Assyrian Queen Semiramis is said to have lingered for a few days after the death of Ara.[7] According to Thomson, the mountain is called Ararat (Armenian: Արարատ) corresponding to Ayrarat, the name of the province.[note 2][note 3]
Ağrı Dağı (Mountain of Ağrı) - The Ottoman Turkish name was Aghur Dagh اغـر طﺎﻍ [note 4] means heavy mountain. Since Ağrı literally means "pain" in Turkic languages such as Azeri and Turkish, the toponym has been popularly rendered as "Painful Mountain". It is almost certainly, however, a borrowing of the Kurdish toponym. Ağrı is also a province in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey, which derived its name from the mountain in 1949.[8] During the Ottoman Empire era the Ağrı village was originally called Karakilise (black church).[9]
Masis (Armenian: Մասիս) - is the Armenian name for the peak of Ararat, the plural Masikʿ (Armenian: Մասիք) may refer to both peaks.[7] The History of Armenia derives the name from a king Amasya, the great-grandson of the Armenian patriarch Hayk, who is said to have called the mountain Masis after his own name.[7]
iyay Agir (Fiery Mountain), iyay Alavhat and Grdax (Kurdish): This entire tree name referred a volcanic characteristic of Mount Ararat. It is the only name to have a clear, descriptive etymology while also indicating the preservation of folk memory.[9]
Kuh-e-Nuh (Noah's Mountain): (Persian: کوه نوح, IPA: [ˈkuːhe ˈnuːx], Kuh-e Nuh) , also influenced by the flood story, this time via the Islamic view of Noah.[9]
Mount Ararat - Wikipedia
Another wiki chunk -
quote:
In Syrian tradition, as well as in Quranic tradition, the specific summit of the "Mountains of Ararat" where Noah's ark landed is identified as Mount Judi in what is today Nakhchivan or northwestern Iran. In the Armenian tradition and Western Christianity, based on Jerome's reading of Josephus, the mountain became associated with Mount Masis (now known as Mount Ararat) the highest peak of the Armenian Highland, located in present day Turkey. During the Middle Ages, this tradition has eclipsed the earlier association with Mount Judi even in Eastern Christianity, and the Mount Judi tradition is now mostly confined to the Islamic view of Noah.
The "Mountains of Ararat" in Genesis clearly refer to a general region, not a specific mountain. Biblical Ararat corresponds to Assyrian Urartu (and Persian Arminya) the name of the kingdom which at the time controlled the Lake Van region, which in later centuries, beginning with Herodotus, came to be known as Armenia.[dubious — discuss]
The Book of Jubilees (7:1) specifies that the Ark came to rest on one of the peaks of the "Mountains of Ararat" called "Lubar".
The Latin Vulgate says "requievitque arca [...] super montes Armeniae", which means literally "and the ark rested [...] on the mountains of Armenia", which was changed to "... mountains of Ararat" (montes Ararat) in the modern Nova Vulgata.[year needed][citation needed]
In the book, Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote:
the ark rested on the top of a certain mountain in Armenia ... However, the Armenians call this place, αποβατηριον 'The Place of Descent'; for the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day. Now all the writers of barbarian histories make mention of this flood, and of this ark; among whom is Berosus the Chaldean. For when he is describing the circumstances of the flood, he goes on thus: "It is said there is still some part of this ship in Armenia, at the mountain of the Cordyaeans; and that some people carry off pieces of the bitumen, which they take away, and use chiefly as amulets for the averting of mischiefs." Hieronymus the Egyptian also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them; where he speaks thus: "There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses the legislator of the Jews wrote." (I.3.5-6, trans. William Whiston)
Sir Walter Raleigh devoted several lengthy chapters of his History of the World (written c. 1616) to his argument that the "Mountains of Ararat" were anciently understood as including not only those of Armenia, but all the taller mountain ranges extending into Asia far to the east, and that Noah's Ark must have landed somewhere in the Orient, since Armenia is not actually east of Shinar.
Mount Ararat - Wikipedia
Could it be that you are the only person on Earth who has been able to establish the correct geographical location of Mt Ararat?
Also, the mountain was renamed Ararat AFTER judaism became popular in the region. It was known as Urartu before that. It may have been the first recording of that name. But this is because the writers gave it that name. I rename Mount Ararat - Mount Coca Cola. This webpage now introduces Mount Coca Cola for the first time, in its correct Geographical location. What does this prove, fuck all and nothing.
Mount Ararat is located in Eastern Turkey on the borders of Iran, Armenia (formerly U.S.S.R.), and Nakchivan. This volcanic mountain rises 5,165 meters or 16,945 feet high, far above the plains that are at 2,000-3,000 feet high, and is the highest location in the ancient territory of Urartu, a region which covered tens of thousands of square miles with hundreds of mountains. Ararat is the newer Armenian name of Urartu from the Hebrew Torah written by Moses (c. 1400 BC), which only included the consonants "rrt". However, the translators of the Bible replaced the "rrt" with the later name, "Ararat" or "Armenia." The Assyrian kings wrote about battles against the Urartian tribes from the thirteenth century BC (c. 1286 BC) until the sixth century BC when Urartu was destroyed by the Medes. The name Urartu then vanished from history (until archaeologists re-discovered it in the 1800s) and was replaced by Ararat and Armenia in the vicinity as well as in English Bible translations, maps, etc. As history went on in the first and second millenia AD, the mountain became known as Ararat and the region as Armenia.
Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat
the surrounding names of ancient countries also listed confirms the applicable region.
FIne. If you believe that you know the region of the flood, please supply its location. A description that can be followed by looking at a modern day map will be fine. Lat and long coordinates of the borders of the flooded region would be great. You appear to be the only person on Earth who has this information so please be specific.
But I won't indulge you in nonsense questions just because you find it unacceptable that Genesis, what you and many others like to refer to as myth and fable, is in fact correct as no other writings is.
So you wont be attempting to support your claims? You just want to be able to rant and rave without having to substantiate any of your claims? Do you believe that your lunacy has some special reason to be beyond contestation? When you post on a science thread, you should expect to get questioned. And we expect answers.
You should be clapping hands at Genesis instead of ignoringits bounty of stats and frog leaping to nonesense.
I cant blindly 'clap my hands' because I am not a fundamentalist Jew, Christian or Muslim and I am not an idiot.
Get back to the topic of start your own thread.

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson
2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 8:11 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by IamJoseph, posted 11-24-2011 9:24 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024