Author Topic: T-Rex on Noahs Ark? (Read 503 times)

Animal · « **Reply #15 on:** May 08, 2002, 04:52:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by JoeDirt
just to let you know, ther WERE dinosaurs around when we were.

You are wrong.
When the first true humans started to spring, the closest thing to a dinosaur were alligators and its relatives, 'chickens' as Rip pointed (though its still not proven that birds are descendants of dinos), and some lizards.

The dinosaurs were, long, long gone when we were "created".
The T-Rex and the humans had no contact; unless you want to take a non-scientific routhe, there is no arguing.

It is symbolic though. You could say that Noah's arc was some sort of alien spaceship sent to this planet containing the recipee for life, or whatever else you want to believe.

GWH · « **Reply #16 on:** May 08, 2002, 06:56:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

Funny, there are enormous religious organisations actively spreading the faith - the churches are working full time, missionaries, TV evangelists, publications, people sticking some kind of booklets to the pedestrians, etc. Seems like insecurity among believers. After all, if the faith is true and God-inspired, it would not have to rely on some guys to bring it to people.
There is no organised anti-religious propaganda that can even begin to compare to the religious one. If we (atheists/agnostics) make some funny observation on apparent stupidity of some religious nut on this board, you should give us a break. After all, you read it when you want to. We are not waking you up with the damned bells ringing!

miko

Hehe, did anyone manage to catch Drew Carey on C-SPAN hosting that Presidential Correspondents Dinner recently? He made a funny (and sorta insightful) comment about how Christianity is the only religion he knows of that uses mascots (Santa, Easter Bunny) to sell its holidays.

Re: insecurity of nonbelievers - hehe. If anything, nonbelievers are quite secure - after all, the onus probandi is on the believers and so far (over the past few millenia) they've yet to make good on that. Besides, it's fun (and sometime too easy) to pick apart some believers - too tempting to pass up sometimes. And if I see Pascal's Wager one more time...

Hey, Sikboy, ever read any Ravi Zacharias?

If you think the Evil Atheist Conspiracy nonsense some believers peddle is bad, wait 'til you read some of Ravi's stuff on atheism. It's entertaining because it's obvious the guy doesn't even know what he writing about.

BTW, #1008

Speaking of which, has anyone ever read Woodmorrape's feasibility study of Noah's Ark? If you want some good chuckles, I suggest you check it out sometime.

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #17 on:** May 08, 2002, 08:12:08 AM »

You know, I hardly ever hear anyone ridiculing the prophet Muhammad or the Muslim religion.

I wonder why that is?

Shuckins

Gadfly · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2002, 08:23:40 AM »

Because they will strap explosives to their body and come to your house.

Kieran · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2002, 08:50:32 AM »

Salmon(sp) Rushdie did...

Boroda · « **Reply #20 on:** May 08, 2002, 10:49:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
You know, I hardly ever hear anyone ridiculing the prophet Muhammad or the Muslim religion.

I wonder why that is?

Shuckins

Because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based on Old Testament. So we here are ridiculing all that three religions.

BTW, unlike Jesus - Mohammed is a real historical person, and his existance can't be doubted.

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #21 on:** May 08, 2002, 11:06:30 AM »

Boroda,

Even the Muslims believe that Jesus was real, and a great prophet. By what reasoning do you claim that he wasn't? Because he has no tomb to visit? Hundreds of historical figures have unmarked graves, and yet their existence is accepted as being beyond argument by historians all over the world. Are we to believe that Genghis Khan did not exist because we cannot find his grave? I think not.

Are we to doubt his existence because the Roman officials of Jesus' time period make no mention of him in their records. Certainly not. During his lifetime, Jesus was a prophet in the tiny province of Palestine, which was aswarm with religious zealots and minor prophets. The absence of records simply means that his ministry had no impact on the Roman officials of that district. To them, one prophet was much like another, and largely ignored.

New Testament accounts provide ample documentation of his existence. While the various authors relate sometimes different views of the same event in his life, we cannot doubt his existence. No two eye-witnesses ever give identical accounts of what they saw. That is not reason to call the accounts into question.

Regards, Shuckins

Boroda · « **Reply #22 on:** May 08, 2002, 11:26:59 AM »

I am an atheist, but I never want to offend religious feelings of the others (at least if they are not "subway-christians" or "buddists" from Aum Sinrike).

What I wanted to point is that the existance of Jesus can be doubted, unlike the existance of the "camel rider". Or let's put it this way: Jesus didn't cause such immediate serious effect on world history to be mentioned in documents.

Eagler · « **Reply #23 on:** May 08, 2002, 12:43:30 PM »

ZZZzzzz

StSanta · « **Reply #24 on:** May 09, 2002, 04:40:20 AM »

GWH, another fellow alt.atheist?

Err, I mean, of course he's not.

Today: AH bb. Tomorrow: the world.

I, of course, never wrote that.

On the subject of Jesus: he might have existed. Personally, I am inclined to believe he did.

However, to say that because he existed, he was the son of God (or God himself, never got the grasp of the trinity deal meself) is a major leap of logic/evidence.

Methinks it is like in Life Of Brian: lots of religious zealots/nutters around, and he was one of 'um. He was probably one of the nicer guys around though.