Andrewwhyte 1 #26 April 15, 2006 BLASPHEMER! The Volcano beer shall never touch your lips. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #27 April 16, 2006 QuackWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #28 April 16, 2006 QuoteQuack -Quack-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack-ack..... See, and you probably thought a duck's quack couldn't echo. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #29 April 16, 2006 Quoteactually the creationist believe that dinosaurs did exist, and that Noah put them on the ark. Creationists believe that the dinosaurs became extinct AFTER the Flood. So prior to the flood, people co-existed with dinosaurs like on the Flintstones. this isn't really correct. rather a different perspective is the way one should look at it. the earth prior too the flood had a canopy (ie the canopy theory). this canopy created a double atmosphere on earth. science has proved the beneficial effects of growth and healing of double atmosphere environments. this is replicated in barometric pressure studies, anyway. take a reptile that never stops growing over their lives. if they live 10-15 years they get too be X size. extend their lives too 700 years they will get much larger. preflood biblical accounts have several records of people living well into their 6 hundreds and older. under this theory, the ark wouldn't have needed full size dinosaurs with the rapid change in climate after the flood these larger reptiles would have died off. Its just one explanation __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #30 April 16, 2006 QuoteQuack Stop it man, you're quacking me up. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #31 April 17, 2006 So if the universe and the earth and all the animals were created in 6 days, where did spaghetti come from? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #32 April 17, 2006 QuoteSo if the universe and the earth and all the animals were created in 6 days, where did spaghetti come from? Ummm....the flying spaghetti monster!??? Duh.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #33 April 17, 2006 QuoteSo if the universe and the earth and all the animals were created in 6 days, where did spaghetti come from? The Italians, of course. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #34 April 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteactually the creationist believe that dinosaurs did exist, and that Noah put them on the ark. Creationists believe that the dinosaurs became extinct AFTER the Flood. So prior to the flood, people co-existed with dinosaurs like on the Flintstones. this isn't really correct. rather a different perspective is the way one should look at it. the earth prior too the flood had a canopy (ie the canopy theory). this canopy created a double atmosphere on earth. science has proved the beneficial effects of growth and healing of double atmosphere environments. this is replicated in barometric pressure studies, anyway. take a reptile that never stops growing over their lives. if they live 10-15 years they get too be X size. extend their lives too 700 years they will get much larger. preflood biblical accounts have several records of people living well into their 6 hundreds and older. under this theory, the ark wouldn't have needed full size dinosaurs with the rapid change in climate after the flood these larger reptiles would have died off. Its just one explanation Hmmm canopy theory you say…. So ermm where did all the water go when it “receded”???? Anyway after doing a little digging around on the interweb it appears that [sic] Air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water per cubic meter. In contrast, liquid water is at a density of 1,000,000 grams per cubic meter. The ratio of the two numbers is 1:18,000. Therefore, a flood of 1 mile thickness would require 18,000 miles of canopy. Besides the problem of gravity (which would bring the whole thing down), such a thick layer of water would completely block any light from the Sun from reaching the earth. Even a canopy of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals, including humans. This pressure would also increase the temperature on the earth to a scorching 220°F. Most animals and plants do not survive long at this temperature. Another problem is getting the water out of the atmosphere and onto the ground without cooking everything on the earth. Each gram of water vapor that condenses to a liquid releases 539 calories of heat. For a global water layer of only 40 feet deep, 6.22 x 1021 grams of water would release 3.35 x 1024 calories, raising the temperature of the earth to 810°F. Such a scenario would definitely kill all life on earth, but would produce a tremendous air conditioning problem for Noah. And a 40 feet deep flood would certainly not be global. So that’s the end of “Canopy Theory” then....----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayruss 0 #35 April 17, 2006 I never made reference too my full support of the canopy theory. However, I do suggest researchers travel past the first link on the search engine when researching topics __________________________________________________ "Beware how you take away hope from another human being." -Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #36 April 17, 2006 QuoteI never made reference too my full support of the canopy theory. However, I do suggest researchers travel past the first link on the search engine when researching topics are you suggesting i didnt???? and are you suggesting that what i posted is incorrect, if so please feel free correct it.... Actually whilst we are on the subject of "Theories" isnt the belief in God, well any god a Theory??? [sic]An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #37 April 17, 2006 Quote Actually whilst we are on the subject of "Theories" isnt the belief in God, well any god a Theory??? [sic]An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. No the belief in God is not a theory, it is an hypothesis; there must be some evidence to support an hypothesis in order for it to be correctly considered a theory. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #38 April 18, 2006 It is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Those belong to the realm of things investigated by the Scientific Method. Issues of spirituality do not fall within that category. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlkskycam 0 #39 April 18, 2006 QuoteThat's sad... I thought everyone knew that God put 'evidence' of dinosaurs here just to test our faith. Of course - but then, you have to accept the idea that their God likes to fuck with people's minds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlkskycam 0 #40 April 18, 2006 Heard a funny while flipping thrugh channels and stopping on Colbert for a few minutes. Essentially, if the scientists had any balls they would, instead of suggesting ideas and theories possibly explaining something, they just right out say that things ~are~ a certain way without bothering to cite evidence - like religion does. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlkskycam 0 #41 April 18, 2006 Quote ...And when the ark rested on Mount Ararat, Noah did climb out the window and did slideth down the tail of the Brontosaurus and did cry out in a loud voice: "Yabba Dabba Doo!!" -with apologies to Bill Hicks- And O, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in its paw. And the disciples did run a-screamin'. "What a big fucking lizard, Lord!" "I'm sure gonna mention this in my book," Luke said. "Well, I'm sure gonna mention it in my book," Matthew said. "I'm not sure what I saw," said Thomas. But Jesus was unafraid. And he took the splinter from the brontosaurus paw, and the brontosaurus became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch, O so many years, attracting fat American families with their fat fuckin' dollars to look for the Loch Ness Monster. And O the Scots did praise the Lord: "Thank you, Lord! Thank you, Lord!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #42 April 18, 2006 QuoteIt is neither a hypothesis nor a theory. Those belong to the realm of things investigated by the Scientific Method. Issues of spirituality do not fall within that category. what other methods of investigation are there apart from scientific investigation????----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #43 April 18, 2006 Quotewhat other methods of investigation are there apart from scientific investigation???? - Textual criticism - Redaction Criticism - Historicity - Archaeology I don't use the Scientific Method to take a trip across the country to a place I've never been. I use a map which was written by people I have never met. I trust it because the author's reliability has been established and it can be shown that the map is a good copy of the original. The terrain features and structures are also verified along the way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #44 April 19, 2006 QuoteQuotewhat other methods of investigation are there apart from scientific investigation???? - Textual criticism - Redaction Criticism - Historicity - Archaeology I don't use the Scientific Method to take a trip across the country to a place I've never been. I use a map which was written by people I have never met. I trust it because the author's reliability has been established and it can be shown that the map is a good copy of the original. The terrain features and structures are also verified along the way. YAWNS...... takes deep breath.......... Where did the map come from???? if New York Crack Whore had drawn you a map on the back of a milk carton showing you the quickest route to the holy grail, you would "trust" them Ok to try and iron out any confusion, “scientific Investigation” and “non scientific investigation” are the two choices, what ever method you choose will have to fit under one of those headings… Example. 1. investigating underground water pipes using dowsing: - non scientific 2. investigating the landscape and mapping terrain via satellite imaging:- Scientific 3. Trying to prove god exists by using Historicity, textual criticism and redaction criticism:- Hmm well who cares really…. ----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)