Anyone can troll a website, but it takes talent to troll a whole town

• sleeper

  

  jmog;1160062 wrote:1. I have stated many times how you do NOT need 60 million animals. Search, I believe I even posted links estimating the number of species needed to get on the ark on this thread.
  2. Feeding them, once you get the numbers I have mentioned, wouldn't be hard to fit on a boat either.
  3. Why would the person have to distribute them? They can migrate themselves.

  Link? How many species was it? This'll be good.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1160061 wrote:And you've been shown to be wrong many times.
  
  Seriously, where is your peer reviewed science for that because there are literally thousands of articles and papers suggesting you are incorrect about evolution.
  
  And macro-evolution in the sense that you were trying to say there doesn't exist. Creationists try to use this to say "see we're right! Things don't just evolve into other things!" Which again is correct. Because macro-evolution is merely micro-evolution/Darwinian natural selection given a longer time scale.

  Please show me one thing I have said that has been proven wrong?
• jmog

  sleeper;1160065 wrote:Link? How many species was it? This'll be good.

  Search my posts sleeper, you have read it yourself and replied...your memory has to be better than that.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1160062 wrote:1. I have stated many times how you do NOT need 60 million animals. Search, I believe I even posted links estimating the number of species needed to get on the ark on this thread.
  2. Feeding them, once you get the numbers I have mentioned, wouldn't be hard to fit on a boat either.
  3. Why would the person have to distribute them? They can migrate themselves.

  How many species was it? Because even feeding just a few dozen animals for a fucking year (this is the time period of the flood described in the Bible) is going to be really hard to do.
  
  And explain to me how land mammals migrated across continents that aren't touching. This will be wonderful.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1160066 wrote:Please show me one thing I have said that has been proven wrong?

  Can I just link to all your posts in this thread minus the ones that say "well hypothetically it's possible if we assume....."?
  
  I want to see some evidence that from one boat load of animals millions of different species evolved and distributed themselves to the current locations in 3000 years.
  
  Edit: Don't forget to account for all the freshwater fish and such as well as plant species.
  
  Protip: We've got solid records for longer than 3000 years and none of them, not even the Bible, mentions anything about your theory of massive quick evolution. And if that did happen why did the rate of change suddenly slow down? IE: Why are we not still seeing evolution at that rate. (By the way that'd be 20000 new species a year on average, don't quite think we find that many new species a year or evidence that we ever did).
• sleeper

  

  jmog;1160067 wrote:Search my posts sleeper, you have read it yourself and replied...your memory has to be better than that.

  That's the thing jmog. You can post it was 5 species, I can post it was 60 million. Neither is right, who cares. All I know is that you're absolutely delusional for actually thinking the world flooded 3000 years ago with no evidence outside one PhD's faux science and an archaic fiction novel that's never been proven.
  
  Comical, but sad.
• sleeper

  

  I Wear Pants;1160071 wrote:Can I just link to all your posts in this thread minus the ones that say "well hypothetically it's possible if we assume....."?
  
  I want to see some evidence that from one boat load of animals millions of different species evolved and distributed themselves to the current locations in 3000 years.

  +1
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1160045 wrote:Possible if we assume a whole bunch of stuff.

  Like what?
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1160078 wrote:Like what?

  That a deity exists. That said deity is the god of the Bible and that the Bible is true.
  
  That's three assumptions and they're pretty damned huge.
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• fish82

  

  I Wear Pants;1160080 wrote:That a deity exists. That said deity is the god of the Bible and that the Bible is true.
  
  That's three assumptions and they're pretty damned huge.

  What does that have to do with a geophysical model demonstrating that it's possible for the earth's surface to cover with water?
  
  Me:

  fish82;1160031 wrote:All the model shows is that it's possible for the earth's surface to cover with water, which was suggested earlier was not physically possible. That's my only vested interest in this discussion, other than that I don't give a crap.

  You:

  I Wear Pants;1160045 wrote:Possible if we assume a whole bunch of stuff.

  ?
• Devils Advocate

  

  
• vball10set

  Devils Advocate;1160089 wrote:

  lmao--tried to rep ya', but I've gotta' spread some around first..well done!
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;1160071 wrote:Can I just link to all your posts in this thread minus the ones that say "well hypothetically it's possible if we assume....."?
  
  I want to see some evidence that from one boat load of animals millions of different species evolved and distributed themselves to the current locations in 3000 years.
  
  Edit: Don't forget to account for all the freshwater fish and such as well as plant species.
  
  Protip: We've got solid records for longer than 3000 years and none of them, not even the Bible, mentions anything about your theory of massive quick evolution. And if that did happen why did the rate of change suddenly slow down? IE: Why are we not still seeing evolution at that rate. (By the way that'd be 20000 new species a year on average, don't quite think we find that many new species a year or evidence that we ever did).

  You said I have been proven wrong and then say that it is because I haven't proven my side to be fact.
  
  That is not logically coherent. I have neither proven my side to be correct NOR been proven to be false.
• I Wear Pants

  fish82;1160090 wrote:What does that have to do with a geophysical model demonstrating that it's possible for the earth's surface to cover with water?
  
  Me:
  
  
  You:
  
  
  ?

  Because the only reason we're talking about it is in relation to the great flood of the Bible. That it happened as the Bible states requires an assumption that god exists.
  
  For that flood to be possible we'd have to explain how all the animals and plants came to be and how they got where they did. How you get around that scientists (I'll say most) in the field don't support the idea that we came from 8 people 3000 years ago. Etc, etc.
  
  If we're just saying that it's possible for the earth to have at some point been covered with water sure let's say that's possible. But the evidence is massively in favor of that having not happened 3000 years ago.
• pmoney25

  

  enigmaax;1159808 wrote:I'm interested in Skyhook's take on this.
  
  It seems like you didn't like the idea of hell, so you adapted your interpretation to fit what you want to happen. Kind of a middle ground - you want to be rewarded for the **** you have to put up with here, but you don't necessarily want others to burn in a fire pit for eternity. At the same time, you don't really feel they're entitled to the same reward as you, so......let's just say they don't get a soul when they die and call it a day.

  Actually Con Alma probably has it right. In the Bible the Word and Idea of the Hell as you know it was not added until the King James Version of the Bible. In all actuality the word Hell was used to replace other words listed in the Bible.
  
  First one being Gehenna. Mostly in the New Testament. Gehenna was actually a place just outside of Jerusalem where the Jews dumped garbage, dead and diseased bodies and would occasionally burn them with sulfur. It was constantly burning. This was also a place where they would place the dead bodies of criminals. It was a way for them to cleanse society. Most of the passages in the New Testament use the word Gehenna.
  
  Another one, mostly in the old testament was the word Sheol. Which translated means a few things, grave, pit, abode for the dead, underworld..etc..It was meant to be used as a place of punishment and torment. The place where the body goes.
  
  So the word Hell appears nowhere in ancient Biblical text. It was added much later. Based off the original text "Hell" was more of a term for non existence and the torment was not being with God. Not being in a fire pit with a guy with horns and a pitchfork. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that gives credence to Hell being your grave.
• sleeper

  

  The great thing about the Bible is you can interpret it whatever way you want and be just as right as the Pope.
  
  Like if I said God hates black people, its valid.
  
  Must be great to base your life on something so racist.
• pmoney25

  

  sleeper;1160785 wrote:The great thing about the Bible is you can interpret it whatever way you want and be just as right as the Pope.
  
  Like if I said God hates black people, its valid.
  
  Must be great to base your life on something so racist.

  Those are not my interpretations, those are what those words meant during Ancient Hebrew times.
  
  It is not my fault that you have no idea what you are talking about. No one really takes you serious and your attempt to guilt people into being ashamed of their faith or making them feel stupid is failing on a massive level.
  
  At least IWP is able to actually use intelligent and rational thought when discussing these things. I know you play it off that you don't want to use your vast intellect because you find it easier and more effective to use sarcasm and insults. Well you are not being effective whatsoever.
  
  So either step it up a notch or give up, because you are failing on a massive level.
• sleeper

  

  pmoney25;1160799 wrote:Those are not my interpretations, those are what those words meant during Ancient Hebrew times.
  
  It is not my fault that you have no idea what you are talking about. No one really takes you serious and your attempt to guilt people into being ashamed of their faith or making them feel stupid is failing on a massive level.
  
  At least IWP is able to actually use intelligent and rational thought when discussing these things. I know you play it off that you don't want to use your vast intellect because you find it easier and more effective to use sarcasm and insults. Well you are not being effective whatsoever.
  
  So either step it up a notch or give up, because you are failing on a massive level.

  This isn't a rational debate. I don't want to "step it up" when disarming my posts with "faith" is generally accepted.
  
  Militant atheism works better than trying to have a discussion with broken minds.
• pmoney25

  

  sleeper;1160801 wrote:This isn't a rational debate. I don't want to "step it up" when disarming my posts with "faith" is generally accepted.
  
  Militant atheism works better than trying to have a discussion with broken minds.

  What have you done in here that works? Has anyone abandoned their faith and set their Bible on fire since you started this Militant Attack?
  
  If you call what you have done so far success, then you have a bright future ahead of you for sure.
• sleeper

  

  pmoney25;1160805 wrote:What have you done in here that works? Has anyone abandoned their faith and set their Bible on fire since you started this Militant Attack?
  
  If you call what you have done so far success, then you have a bright future ahead of you for sure.

  I doubt I have converted anyone, but constantly repeating the facts about religion degrades the minds ability to hold on to false irrational beliefs. The human mind tries to rational, it actually prefers it. If you constantly pump the association of fraud and religion into to the minds of the weak(ie, all believers) it slowly but surely creates erodes the strength of said belief.
  
  Baby steps pmoney. It works, and one day religion will be laughed at much like people laugh at the Greek Gods or Thor in present times. One can only hope its sooner rather than later.
• Con_Alma

  sleeper;1160801 wrote:This isn't a rational debate. I don't want to "step it up" when disarming my posts with "faith" is generally accepted.
  
  Militant atheism works better than trying to have a discussion with broken minds.

  I can't think of a reason to debate at all. It's not about winning another's mind. Who were you debating?
• sleeper

  

  Con_Alma;1160820 wrote:I can't think of a reason to debate at all. It's not about winning another's mind. Who were you debating?

  I debate with God constantly. He never responds, so that means I win.
• I Wear Pants

  sleeper;1160816 wrote:I doubt I have converted anyone, but constantly repeating the facts about religion degrades the minds ability to hold on to false irrational beliefs. The human mind tries to rational, it actually prefers it. If you constantly pump the association of fraud and religion into to the minds of the weak(ie, all believers) it slowly but surely creates erodes the strength of said belief.
  
  Baby steps pmoney. It works, and one day religion will be laughed at much like people laugh at the Greek Gods or Thor in present times. One can only hope its sooner rather than later.

  
  
  
• sleeper