This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Shtal on 05 January 2013 - 07:01
I agree with Kent Hovind here: If you set a time bar with the mouse click for 6:24 time.
by Shtal on 05 January 2013 - 07:01
by Felloffher on 05 January 2013 - 07:01
Science and history for the mentaly retarded. Go back a couple of pages and watch some of those Hovind is an idiot video's I posted.
by Shtal on 06 January 2013 - 05:01
Felloffher,
I am not going to argue with you about Hovind, but long time ago vonissk in some other thread posted this poster, and I think it 's appropriate to repost here too.
You take care,
Shtal.
I am not going to argue with you about Hovind, but long time ago vonissk in some other thread posted this poster, and I think it 's appropriate to repost here too.
You take care,
Shtal.
by Felloffher on 07 January 2013 - 19:01
You can't agrue with me or anyone else about Hovind's claims, because he's flat out wrong about everything. Your little picture is just another example of creationist dishonesty. Your arguments can't be won on merit, so you attempt to discredit the opposition. Another fail.
by Shtal on 08 January 2013 - 03:01
Felloffher wrote: The article I posted doesn't represent any ground breaking theories, there is an endless amount of data that supports the author's article and ideas. Despite what you claim, there is very little dispute outside of creationist circles as to the accuracy of dating past civilizations or any of the other questions raised in the article. The mountain of evidence against the idea of Noah's flood myth occurring is to overwhelming to be ignored. The basis for disputing the bible doesn't hang on Noah's flood myth alone, there many other inconsistencies which I've pointed out and many others not discussed here. The sad part is biblical creationist's still attempt to validate their claims with dishonest tactics. You can't argue claims based on merit, so your only option is to falsely attack credibility, ignore facts and/or insert falsehood.
The shear multitude of bible manuscripts alone only confirms that Christianity is and was a popular belief, however this alone doesn't guarantee it's authenticity. The bible along with many other religious and mythical stories where written in a time when man had very little understanding of the physical world around them. Today we have a much greater understanding of our physical world and we are able to critically analyze the evidence that is uncovered and piece it together. Holding on to myth in spite of fact, is detrimental to our ability as a society to move forward productively and is an insult to our collective intelligence.
You my dear Felloffher gave opinions not facts.
It is not true that non-creationist archaeologists have a monolithic agreement on dating. There is enormous dispute on these matters.
And the multiplicity of Bible manuscripts is what would be expected, if the Bible were accurate, because these manuscripts differ from each other by no more than one typo every 27 pages. And yet there are over a thousand times the Bible manuscripts compared to the total manuscripts of all other ancient books combined.
But you Felloffher refuse to accept these obvious points. Time to stop throwing pearls before swine.
btw, You should be more concerned to be saved through Jesus Christ.
Shtal.
The shear multitude of bible manuscripts alone only confirms that Christianity is and was a popular belief, however this alone doesn't guarantee it's authenticity. The bible along with many other religious and mythical stories where written in a time when man had very little understanding of the physical world around them. Today we have a much greater understanding of our physical world and we are able to critically analyze the evidence that is uncovered and piece it together. Holding on to myth in spite of fact, is detrimental to our ability as a society to move forward productively and is an insult to our collective intelligence.
You my dear Felloffher gave opinions not facts.
It is not true that non-creationist archaeologists have a monolithic agreement on dating. There is enormous dispute on these matters.
And the multiplicity of Bible manuscripts is what would be expected, if the Bible were accurate, because these manuscripts differ from each other by no more than one typo every 27 pages. And yet there are over a thousand times the Bible manuscripts compared to the total manuscripts of all other ancient books combined.
But you Felloffher refuse to accept these obvious points. Time to stop throwing pearls before swine.
btw, You should be more concerned to be saved through Jesus Christ.
Shtal.
by Two Moons on 08 January 2013 - 04:01
God save us all.....
by Felloffher on 08 January 2013 - 06:01
Shtal,
You are a complete moron. There isn't an enormous dispute on historical dating procedures outside of creationist circles.
The shear multitude of bible manuscripts alone only confirms that Christianity is and was a popular belief, however this alone doesn't guarantee it's authenticity.
Just because the bible has thousands of manuscripts, this doesn't make the stories true. Is that easier for you to understand?
Even if Jesus was a real god (which he isn't), I would tell him to fuck off for being such a petty asshole.
You are a complete moron. There isn't an enormous dispute on historical dating procedures outside of creationist circles.
The shear multitude of bible manuscripts alone only confirms that Christianity is and was a popular belief, however this alone doesn't guarantee it's authenticity.
Just because the bible has thousands of manuscripts, this doesn't make the stories true. Is that easier for you to understand?
Even if Jesus was a real god (which he isn't), I would tell him to fuck off for being such a petty asshole.
by Shtal on 08 January 2013 - 09:01
by Felloffher on 09 January 2013 - 19:01
Shtal,
Your posts are getting boring, you can't even stay on point with any of your arguments.
Your posts are getting boring, you can't even stay on point with any of your arguments.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top