Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Science → Religion got it right before science

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

New Britain
Today at 11:36 AM
Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 08:14 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 29, 2025, 11:13 AM
Kashmir endgame
April 24, 2025, 05:12 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
April 23, 2025, 04:19 PM
Pope Francis Signals Rema...
April 21, 2025, 09:06 AM
الحبيب من يشبه اكثر؟؟؟
by akay
April 18, 2025, 01:19 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
March 29, 2025, 01:09 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:40 AM
Ramadan
by akay
March 29, 2025, 08:39 AM
Turkish mafia reliance
March 24, 2025, 06:00 PM
افضل الايام
by akay
March 21, 2025, 10:57 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Religion got it right before science

 (Read 52325 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 10 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #120 - November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:38 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:37 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:35 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:31 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:25 PM
    Quote
    It is NOT true.

    They just found evidence of a human bottleneck this year, and have not yet concluded on the animal effect.

    Stop guessing or lying, it's really disgusting.


    Actually, the knowledge of a human genetic bottleneck is around ten years old.  But whatever about that, the truth that I asserted in my last post is your avoidance of all my questions about the Flood, and your avoidance of the geological proof that a global flood never took place.  This proves that you are unable to back up your point, so stop flogging a dead horse and concede then we can move on to something else.


    1. 'genetic' ten years ago? I don't think so. What's ur profession?
    2. Where did I say 'global'?
    3. Since when did 'no strong evidence suggesting', mean 'No.?

    1/ Yes, ten years old. Want me to dig up the papers for you? Scientific papers that is.
    2/ Yes, global. Are you now claiming that the flood of Noah wiped out all creatures on earth but was only a localised flood?
    3/ It means "No" when there is strong evidence against. That is what you have to confront.



    Please do.

    Not a problem. I'll go an google some up for you.

    Now, while I'm doing that how about 2 and 3?


    While u at it, u may wanna read this part of the article- "... Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics....."

    2. Ice could have well made other parts of Earth than Africa uninhabitable, and only Africa nneded be flooded cuz all life was concentrated there.

    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no. After all, scientists claimed adequate evidence for the racist multi-origin theory for so long till they discovered and accepted religions common adam(eve) single origin theory.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #121 - November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #122 - November 04, 2008, 12:44 PM
    Quote from: Jack Torrance on November 03, 2008, 11:53 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 03, 2008, 11:35 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 03, 2008, 11:19 PM
    Hello, welcome. 

    What is all this nonsense on your web site about Noah's flood?


    Firstly let us conduct ourselves decently and not like barbarians. Monotheism lifts humanity from that and is the single source of all morality and moral attempts of the human race, thank Allah.

    Ask questions, we discuss and if we disagree, u display this disagreement with responsible humor.  As long as u ask questions in the way above, my responding can not be guaranteed. It's ur choice.

    Now to ur question.
    ----------

    Science has discovered a very important adverse condition caused 'Bottle neck' with consequent re-sprouting of humanity from a single gene line, which is proof of a near total extinction event like 'Noah's flood'. This is significant progress by science and we watch to see as further evidence and facts evolve on it.

    Your take-





    Thanks for that clarity. Now, what about the resurrection, what's the true story behind that 'miracle'?


    Greetings, Jack

    Are you referring to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. If you are, then I must say that the resurrection of Jesus is a big hoax.  Wink

    Cheers
    BMZ
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #123 - November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:39 PM


    Don't leave a faith without first knowing about it.

    U def. ne'er read the Quran, cuz it lists tons of extinctions. So sad, really. I could have guessed. Similar stories erry1?


    You can't blame your ADHD for being an idiot this time, the Quran only lists 1 GLOBAL extinction initiated by Allah, everything else was LOCAL smiting.

    Either show me some evidence that you are right, or accept that you are an idiot.

    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #124 - November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085


    Not genetic
    Not 70,000 years ago
    Not global

    Are u confused?
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #125 - November 04, 2008, 12:47 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:39 PM


    Don't leave a faith without first knowing about it.

    U def. ne'er read the Quran, cuz it lists tons of extinctions. So sad, really. I could have guessed. Similar stories erry1?


    You can't blame your ADHD for being an idiot this time, the Quran only lists 1 GLOBAL extinction initiated by Allah, everything else was LOCAL smiting.

    Either show me some evidence that you are right, or accept that you are an idiot.




    U are getting there. Google?
    Keep checking.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #126 - November 04, 2008, 12:47 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    While u at it, u may wanna read this part of the article- "...Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently...."

    2. Ice could have well made other parts of Earth than Africa uninhabitable, and only Africa nneded be flooded cuz all life was concentrated there.

    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no. After all, scientists claimed adequate evidence for the racist multi-origin theory for so long till they discovered and accepted religions common adam(eve) single origin theory.

    1. So now you're saying droughts are evidence of the flood? That's a good one.  grin12

    2. Do you know if there actually was an ice age 70,000 years ago? Just wondering.

    Also, now you claim all life was concentrated in Africa but earlier in this very thread you claimed humans were distributed worldwide 70,000 years ago. You are contradicting yourself. Shoot own foot. Nice job.

    3. Lack of evidence means no evidence for. This means you have nothing but baseless assertions, which we already knew. Kthnx. Tongue
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #127 - November 04, 2008, 12:48 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:47 PM


    U are getting there. Google?
    Keep checking.


    By the way, we smite people for trolling, either back up your claim or I will smite you.  3 smites will lead you to be confined in damnation.

    Carry on being a fool and I will have to deal with you.

    Prove it.
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #128 - November 04, 2008, 12:49 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085


    Not genetic
    Not 70,000 years ago
    Not global

    Are u confused?

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Certainly looks like it.

    You are the one who seems, if not confused as such, certainly not acquainted with the facts.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #129 - November 04, 2008, 12:50 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:36 PM
    Quote from: gonzo on November 04, 2008, 12:32 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 11:49 AM
    Quote from: Variable on November 04, 2008, 11:38 AM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 11:07 AM
    Do u guys watch the US elections?

    the way the democrats prove the repubs as evil, and the repubs prove the dems as evil?


    I say we wait and see the evidence as it unfolds about this recent bottleneck discovery.

    Patience any1?


    You know, I applaud the fact that you came out to 'hostile territory' so to speak, to have a debate (of sorts).  But really all you've done is bring up an open ended fact, without really looking into it at all, or bringing any supporting evidence to bear, and asked people to 'prove you wrong' based on it.  And it's kind of painful to watch.

    As for your point on a 'bottleneck', the idea isn't really news.  I was just reading about it in a book published in 1997.  I don't know what you're expecting to happen.... perhaps to come here, lay this fact on the table and expect everyone who doesn't share your beliefs to be stumped?



    Nope.
    I just expect us to all politely agree to wait and see where this 2008 brand new discovery leads us. But in the interim to move on to better topics from my site.

    But alas, these desperados r scared to move to more substantiated discourse and wish dwell forever beating a horses shadow. Notice they picked this topic from my site, an open topic as stated there.

    Y did they shut my thread. Slavery era is over. I can discuss two topics in parallel. I was doing so where Jihadist found me... they claiming i will spam. Can't he see me spam b4 deleting my spam and locking me up? In truth they r scared and are pouncing on this open, inconclusive issue.

    Sad? or desperate? Sasperate.


    According to the article linked on the AgainstScience site regarding this bottleneck from around 70,000 years ago this "2008 brand new discovery" links the cause of the population decline to severe drought in Africa and not a severe flooding event.

    Quote from: CNN
    The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.


    Source

    Try to ensure your evidence actually supports your claim.

    Regards,
    Gonzo



    "....Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently...."


    Is this ur first exposure to this bottleneck topic?


    But the study does not say that a global flood may have contributed to the population changes; because there is no geological evidence to support the notion of a large scale flood in that region at the time in question.  However, on your site you seem to very happy to go further than a "may" to a "probably"

    Quote from: AgainstScience.com
    140,000 years after 'Eve' (Adam and Eve), about 70,000 years ago,
    there was something they don't know for sure what...probably the flood,
    that shrunk Earth population to just a few in Africa, then these few
    re-populated Earth.

    It may not be Noah's extinction, it may be one of the other extinctions God
    told us categorically of in the Holy books.

    Once again, religion came first with the fact that man went through what's
    scientifically called 'a bottle neck' in our global growth.

    Aren't they catching up slowly? Good work. All that money is bringing them home slowly isn't t.


    Regards,
    Gonzo
    "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles" - Ayn Rand
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #130 - November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue
    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #131 - November 04, 2008, 12:52 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:47 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    While u at it, u may wanna read this part of the article- "...Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently...."

    2. Ice could have well made other parts of Earth than Africa uninhabitable, and only Africa nneded be flooded cuz all life was concentrated there.

    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no. After all, scientists claimed adequate evidence for the racist multi-origin theory for so long till they discovered and accepted religions common adam(eve) single origin theory.

    1. So now you're saying droughts are evidence of the flood? That's a good one.  grin12

    2. Do you know if there actually was an ice age 70,000 years ago? Just wondering.

    Also, now you claim all life was concentrated in Africa but earlier in this very thread you claimed humans were distributed worldwide 70,000 years ago. You are contradicting yourself. Shoot own foot. Nice job.

    3. Lack of evidence means no evidence for. This means you have nothing but baseless assertions, which we already knew. Kthnx. Tongue


    1. Droughts 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', 'may', have caused the extinction.

    2. Global/worldide just refers to errywhere inhabitable.

    3. We watch and see, but so far it could very well be. The glass is half full to me, and half empty to u.


    Now is there any decent person here to open my thread?
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #132 - November 04, 2008, 12:53 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:49 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085


    Not genetic
    Not 70,000 years ago
    Not global

    Are u confused?

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Certainly looks like it.

    You are the one who seems, if not confused as such, certainly not acquainted with the facts.


    U said 'genetic', there was no such genetic studies 10 years ago. But i understand that u don't.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #133 - November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #134 - November 04, 2008, 12:56 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 05:14 AM
    According to science this bottle neck occurred only 70,000 years ago. I believe u know humans were numerous spread globally at that time. Sorry ur theory is wrong. Please try again.

    ......

    Here you go. I've quoted one of your posts from this thread. You say humans were numerous and spread globally at the time of the much vaunted genetic restriction. Surely this means that a local flood in part of Africa could not possibly be the cause of the bottleneck. 

    You need a global flood to kill off a global population.   
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #135 - November 04, 2008, 12:57 PM
    this isn't fun anymore.  It's like watching a 6th grader get schooled by a heavy weight champ round after round.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #136 - November 04, 2008, 12:57 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:56 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 05:14 AM
    According to science this bottle neck occurred only 70,000 years ago. I believe u know humans were numerous spread globally at that time. Sorry ur theory is wrong. Please try again.

    ......

    Here you go. I've quoted one of your posts from this thread. You say humans were numerous and spread globally at the time of the much vaunted genetic restriction. Surely this means that a local flood in part of Africa could not possibly be the cause of the bottleneck. 

    You need a global flood to kill off a global population.   


    read my post above.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #137 - November 04, 2008, 12:58 PM
    Quote from: Variable on November 04, 2008, 12:57 PM
    this isn't fun anymore.  It's like watching a 6th grader get schooled by a heavy weight champ round after round.


    depends on who's watching.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #138 - November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.

    You are entirely missing the point. We have solid evidence that it did not happen. Any competent geologist can tell you this.

    Also, global does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "localised in part of Africa".
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #139 - November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote
    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.


    By 70,000 years ago every continent on earth was inhabited by something, so an inhabited Earth flood = a global flood.  We know from geology that this never happened.  Even if we didn't the story of Noah's Ark is impossible, as your failure to answer any of my questions about it demonstrates.

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #140 - November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Make up your mind, you can either spell or you can't, if you are going to act a specific part make it consistent or people will see straight through you.  whistling2
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #141 - November 04, 2008, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.

    You are entirely missing the point. We have solid evidence that it did not happen. Any competent geologist can tell you this.

    Also, global does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "localised in part of Africa".


    Lack of evidence for with current studies does not mean,- evidence against. And when I say global I do not mean arctic to antarctic and beyond. I mean- populated Earth.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #142 - November 04, 2008, 01:02 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.

    You are entirely missing the point. We have solid evidence that it did not happen. Any competent geologist can tell you this.

    Also, global does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "localised in part of Africa".


    Lack of evidence for with current studies does not mean,- evidence against. And when I say global I do not mean arctic to antarctic and beyond. I mean- populated Earth.



    I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I remain.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #143 - November 04, 2008, 01:02 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:53 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:49 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085


    Not genetic
    Not 70,000 years ago
    Not global

    Are u confused?

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Certainly looks like it.

    You are the one who seems, if not confused as such, certainly not acquainted with the facts.


    U said 'genetic', there was no such genetic studies 10 years ago. But i understand that u don't.

    I'll explain it for you very simply. The paper is about "a bottleneck in human evolution". Now, since evolution depends entirely upon genes this paper is about a reduction in genetic diversity. All biologists knew that then and they know it now. You don't seem to know it. Strange.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #144 - November 04, 2008, 01:03 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Make up your mind, you can either spell or you can't, if you are going to act a specific part make it consistent or people will see straight through you.  whistling2


    Study the faith that u left b4 u hate it. Hate is a very bad thing. Do urself justice. I can mail u a Quran.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #145 - November 04, 2008, 01:04 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:53 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:49 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:45 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:42 PM
    Here you go: a paper from 1993. How many do you want?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8266085


    Not genetic
    Not 70,000 years ago
    Not glhttp://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?action=post;quote=93096;topic=3620.128;num_replies=133;sesc=398b6e0bb2efab19aba8c66d35302557obal

    Are u confused?

    Wrong.
    Wrong.
    Certainly looks like it.

    You are the one who seems, if not confused as such, certainly not acquainted with the facts.


    U said 'genetic', there was no such genetic studies 10 years ago. But i understand that u don't.


    The genographic project was started in 2005 but that is only a study of human migration patterns using genetics.  It did not discover the existence of population bottlenecks or even the existence of DNA, which has been extensively studied since Mendel experimented on it and Miescher isolated it in the mid 19th century.

    Regards,
    Gonzo
    "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles" - Ayn Rand
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #146 - November 04, 2008, 01:05 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 01:03 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Make up your mind, you can either spell or you can't, if you are going to act a specific part make it consistent or people will see straight through you.  whistling2


    Study the faith that u left b4 u hate it. Hate is a very bad thing. Do urself justice. I can mail u a Quran.


    Please don't bother, you need it yourself.

    You have already proven yourself to be a cretin, as far as I am concerned you lost the point.  Cheesy
    Inhale the good shit, exhale the bullshit.
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #147 - November 04, 2008, 01:05 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.

    You are entirely missing the point. We have solid evidence that it did not happen. Any competent geologist can tell you this.

    Also, global does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "localised in part of Africa".


    Lack of evidence for with current studies does not mean,- evidence against. And when I say global I do not mean arctic to antarctic and beyond. I mean- populated Earth.

    And once again you are evading the point. It is not that we have no evidence for, it is that we have definitive evidence against.

    Also you have just admitted that you have no evidence for. So you have nothing.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #148 - November 04, 2008, 01:07 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on November 04, 2008, 01:05 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 01:03 PM
    Quote from: BerberElla on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Make up your mind, you can either spell or you can't, if you are going to act a specific part make it consistent or people will see straight through you.  whistling2


    Study the faith that u left b4 u hate it. Hate is a very bad thing. Do urself justice. I can mail u a Quran.


    Please don't bother, you need it yourself.

    You have already proven yourself to be a cretin, as far as I am concerned you lost the point.  Cheesy


    Does that make u happy?
  • Re: Religion got it right before science
     Reply #149 - November 04, 2008, 01:08 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 01:05 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 01:01 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on November 04, 2008, 12:59 PM
    Quote from: AgainstScience on November 04, 2008, 12:54 PM
    Quote from: Cheetah on November 04, 2008, 12:51 PM
    Quote
    3. Lack of evidence does not mean no.


    Yes, but we have evidence that no global flood ever took place.  Even if we didn't you would still need to answer the questions I posted earlier if the Noah's Ark story is to be proved true. 

    You can't answer them, and you can't refute the evidence.  You're up the proverbial creek. Tongue


    U do not yet have evidence of a global(which may be only Africa/inhabited Earth) flood. this does not= evidence that none happened.

    You are entirely missing the point. We have solid evidence that it did not happen. Any competent geologist can tell you this.

    Also, global does not by any stretch of the imagination mean "localised in part of Africa".


    Lack of evidence for with current studies does not mean,- evidence against. And when I say global I do not mean arctic to antarctic and beyond. I mean- populated Earth.

    And once again you are evading the point. It is not that we have no evidence for, it is that we have definitive evidence against.

    Also you have just admitted that you have no evidence for. So you have nothing.


    Ok, so can we now move to my topic? This the last time I am askin. email me when u grow up.
  • Previous page 1 ... 3 4 56 7 ... 10 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »