Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wolfala on October 26, 2006, 09:09:42 PM
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3MmwttNVvQ
I needed to strap myself in to watch this for 5 minutes to prevent anything resembling rational thought from escaping and punching the screen. But it is certainly OC worthy. Esp the first part about "National Pornographic, er - Geographic" and humans seeing living dinosaurs.
Enjoy.
<3
Wolf
-
Was interesting and amusing for about a 3rd of the way in.
Then he started sounding like my Uncle the Jehovas Witness and just got down right boring and annoying.
Couldnt go any farther.
Made some decent points untill then though
-
What a load of bunk...Yeah & the earth is only 6000 yrs old...:lol
-
He is quite a persuasive speaker in my opinion. Very good public speaker.
-
wow. he's like an hour away.
tempting.
-
157 minutes long! not in this lifetime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:noid :noid :noid :noid
-
:lol
-
What he said in the beginning:
"Somebody is seriously wrong" :rofl
-
I thought to myself "well whatever it is it can't be a bad as that idiot loon Kent Hovind..." And lo and behold it is Kent Hovind.
-
^
quality.
:D
-
I'm sure he'll be making more from his prison cell.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Made some decent points untill then though
Good one!
-
Originally posted by Booz
I'm sure he'll be making more from his prison cell.
OK..... fill me in. He has such a soothing voice so whats he done ?
-
Oh no! Hovind is a Norwegian name. The shame! :(
-
:huh
I couldn't get through the whole thing either. Although he makes an interesting presentation for those who believe I suppose.
So at the end, does everyone drink the red koolaid?;)
cheers,
RTR
-
OK. Now Im not saying I agree with him.
but alot of people are calling him an idiot.
What are your arguements to his arguements?
Prove him wrong
-
He's far from being an idiot (apart from the tax evasion thing). He is a well spoken and effective demagogue, but I don't think he actually believes what he preaches. I think he's in it for the money. Like so many others he has figured out that many religious people are suckers.
-
I wouldn't be so brazen as to claim to know what is in someone else's heart.
For myself, this person's view, like so many other views that we see from speakers of the world's religions, doesn't satisfy me at all.
That is why I have my own personal religion, and my own personal relationship with God.
-
It never ceases to amaze me the way creationists jump through hoops attempting to make the bible fit with reality. I watched the first five minutes so I could at least get a feel for it. In that time he told us that some of the 'wat-er' was either hanging in space above the atmosphere and the rest of the 'wat-er' was underneath the earth. Man was around at the time of the dinosaurs and we all lived to be around 700 to 800 hundred years old.
Well that's soooooooooo plausible. :rolleyes:
It is remarkable how people like that reject all forms of scientific evidence and yet are quite prepared to make up some junk science based on the wording of a much translated book written thousands of years ago.
It isn't really neccessary to watch the rest. It's pathetic.
-
I once read a book about similar things, - written by Jehova Witness whateverhisnamewas. They were trying to prove that fossils were fake, etc etc, INCLUDING "There were never dinos"
Now this guy is trying to prove that our blueball is no more than 6K old.
Okay, - but while we pretty well know that it isn't, we do know that it's about the age of civilization. So, from man being concious and making different things than being one of the animals or just a smart hunter/gatherer, the bible actually has the time roughly correct.
But our blueball was around forever before....
-
I don't think it takes a whole lot of intellect or persuasive talent to convince a room full of morons that they've been right about everything they've always believed. And yes, there's money in it.
-
Originally posted by Neubob
I don't think it takes a whole lot of intellect or persuasive talent to convince a room full of morons that they've been right about everything they've always believed. And yes, there's money in it.
I'll say. look at all the money the left collects from hollywood.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
OK. Now Im not saying I agree with him.
but alot of people are calling him an idiot.
What are your arguements to his arguements?
Prove him wrong
Where to begin...
OK first off some local nitpickery -- find me the actual Chinese flood myth. Because I contend that is rubbish: Firstly the name Fuhi isn't Chinese according to any of the English transliterations I've seen (Fu is OK hi is not) and neither is the purported book's name, Hihking (king is ok, Hih is not). So that smacks of "we've just made this up".
A cursory net check seems to go with me on that (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html). BTW if you come up with a Miao legend, click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_1.html) before posting.
The Hawaiian legend appears to be on equally dodgy ground: apparently the myth that "sounds a lot like the bible story" sounds a lot like it because it's a xianised version of the original myth.
But let's get to a big problem: that whole "kinds" of animals spiel. He really doesn't define what a "kind" of animal is, and it's important that he doesn't. Because it essentially can only mean that he believes not only in Darwinian evolution, but in some really serious, rapid evolution "post-flood", which is according to his own theory impossible. Why? Because if you have different species, descended from one "kind" of animal (and there are only 8,000 "kinds" of animal, whilst there are millions of species), then you have only from 2304 BC to get these new species to evolve and only 2 specimens of each to get all these multitudes from. And a "kind" of animal evolving into different species means the creationists' "macro-evolution" bugbear has to happen. The only way to avoid this is to define the "kind" as a species, so you're back up to the millions of "kinds" and two of each.
All of this is still minutiae really, the main point being: he thinks the Bible is true, but can't offer any proof that it is. Thus basing stuff around this central assumption, he can get away with the most amazing nonsense, without a shred of proof:
"There used to be a layer of water above the atmosphere. Some people think it was ice, I dunno if it's solid, liquid or gas, water comes in three flavours, but somehow there was water up there. How it was up there, I don't know, but the bible says it was and I believe it."
This is just after he derides "a scientist" with this put down: "Well, he might believe that, but that's not part of science, folks." Oh the irony!
And if the US school textbooks are over simplistic and their theory of creation is questionable because of it, what then is the Jewish creation myth as put in genesis?
He seems to think he can simply talk, joke and reason his way out of evolution rather than offer any serious proof, and this attitude extends to his taxes too, apparently. It doesn't seem to be working well for him in either area. The guy is essentially a carny with a lot of pre-selected easy marks.
-
sheesh, can't my town get publicity without it being about some whacko nut job?
Oh wait, we did sink the Oriskany here! Though that did bring out the environmentalists...
-
I "kinardley" stand to watch this.
shamus
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
OK. Now Im not saying I agree with him.
but alot of people are calling him an idiot.
What are your arguements to his arguements?
Prove him wrong
You can start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Too much crap to go through point by point. These folks can and do.
-
Originally posted by Urchin
He is quite a persuasive speaker in my opinion. Very good public speaker.
So was Clinton and Hitler before him.
-
Originally posted by Viking
He's far from being an idiot (apart from the tax evasion thing). He is a well spoken and effective demagogue, but I don't think he actually believes what he preaches. I think he's in it for the money. Like so many others he has figured out that many religious people are suckers.
many? I see your many, and raise you most
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
So was Clinton and Hitler before him.
Oh great. now we are comparing a man supposedly of god to two antiChrists LMAO
-
Alas he wasn't so persuasive in front of a jury:
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS01/611030338/1006
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Oh great. now we are comparing a man supposedly of god to two antiChrists LMAO
No, not at all, someone said he was a great speaker. I named two other's.
I am a Catholic. However, I have a piece of Banded Ironstone from the UP of Michigan. The rock is known dated as 3.6 billion years old. I showed it to a Baptist, he told me "the Earth was only 11,000 years old". C'est La Vie.
-
Impossible!
Xenu told me and Tom Cruise the earth is only 48 this year! (But still doesn't look a day over 35)
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
No, not at all, someone said he was a great speaker. I named two other's.
I am a Catholic. However, I have a piece of Banded Ironstone from the UP of Michigan. The rock is known dated as 3.6 billion years old. I showed it to a Baptist, he told me "the Earth was only 11,000 years old". C'est La Vie.
you're both extremists
hes a religous one, you're an owning-old-rocks one
OMFG 3,600,000,000 is a lot of years!!!!1
-
Originally posted by Debonair
you're both extremists
hes a religous one, you're an owning-old-rocks one
OMFG 3,600,000,000 is a lot of years!!!!1
Not an extremist!!! Geology was my first Major in College. Still study it and use it as a hobby.
Yes, that rock is older than dirt :)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
The rock is known dated as 3.6 billion years old.
wow, that is nearly as old as lazs!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Oh great. now we are comparing a man supposedly of god to two antiChrists LMAO
I'm pretty sure that there hasn't been an evil leader yet that hasn't held himself out to be a man of the people, a friend to the masses, etc, etc...
The man 'supposedly of god' could well be the devil incarnate himself. He just won't say this outloud because it gets far fewer people onboard for the ride to hell.
-
Originally posted by Ball
wow, that is nearly as old as lazs!
Heehee.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It is remarkable how people like that reject all forms of scientific evidence and yet are quite prepared to make up some junk science based on the wording of a much translated book written thousands of years ago.
It isn't really neccessary to watch the rest. It's pathetic.
It used to be the holy man WAS the scientist, all knowing and extremely influential in society... he was the "Shell answer man" for the unknown. Greeks believed angry gods made thunder / lightning, why?, some holy man made it up because he had no real clue WTF... but at least it was an answer people could understand, to alleviate their fears.
Science has been challenging, and disproving, old holy man explanations for decades now.. of course they're going to resist being proven wrong (over and over again) otherwise they become totally irrelevant.
The holy man doesn't want to be seen as just another dude in a robe with an opinion, they want people to believe they have some special insight to answers.. and the science man just keeps getting in the way.
-
Joseph Campbell's The Hero with a thousand faces and Myths to live by.
I haven't read The power of myth, but the first two are very good studies of that shift.
-
I watched one of the other episodes where he talks about big-bang theory and creation of the universe. The man either doesn't understand physics at all or simply ignore it and lies to the crowd. The mess he made out cosmology and astrophysics was hillarious.
I also loved the "so logically..." illogical conclusions. "we measure something that is increasing, therefor millions of years ago - it was lower..." well, yes, if everything is linear or monotonous :D
damn good speaker though, too bad he talks BS.
-
Originally posted by bozon
damn good speaker though, too bad he talks BS.
The only thing I found to be impressive about his public speaking is his ability to keep a straight face, given the subject matter... Of course, that may be the whole trick with anyone preaching absurdity to those that know no better. Who knows, if Hitler had broken out in laughter during one of his tirades, the world might be a different place today.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
Impossible!
Xenu told me and Tom Cruise the earth is only 48 this year! (But still doesn't look a day over 35)
Tronsky
hehehehehehe:rofl :aok
-
Hovind doesn't just fight science, he ignores jesus - you know, "render unto ceasar..". I guess his claim about being above the tax code was in error.
http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061103/NEWS01/611030338
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
No, not at all, someone said he was a great speaker. I named two other's.
I am a Catholic. However, I have a piece of Banded Ironstone from the UP of Michigan. The rock is known dated as 3.6 billion years old. I showed it to a Baptist, he told me "the Earth was only 11,000 years old". C'est La Vie.
Hi Masherbrum,
Since you have a background in geology, I was wondering if you could decode the last paragraph below from a U Mich website about radiometric dating. I cannot get a clear understanding of what they are trying to say.
umich (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/clocks_in_rocks/clocks_in_rocks.html)
------------------
A useful analogy to illustrate the fundamentals of geochronology is an hourglass. If we start with one side of the hourglass full (containing the 'parent') and the other side empty (containing the 'daughter'), we only need to know the rate at which the sands moves from one chamber to the other (represented by the half-life) and the amount of sand in the daughter chamber or the amount of parent remaining to determine how much time has passed. However, in reality matters are more complex.
A complication occurs in natural samples because at the time the radiogenic clock starts ticking, the sample already contains some daughter material; in other words, some sand is already present in the daughter chamber even before we begin measuring time. This amount of daughter is referred to as the initial daughter. Therefore, when we measure the amount of daughter product in our specimen we are combining the amounts of daughter from decay of the parent and initial daughter. The amount of initial daughter, however, needs to be subtracted for age determination.
The solution to this problem lies in first determining the amount of initial daughter. The actual method is a little tricky, but basically what we need is to find a part of the sample that contains no radiogenic 87Rb. The measured 87Sr in that part of the sample must therefore be initial daughter (i.e., non-radiogenic in origin). The tricky part comes from the fact that such a component cannot be found, but the same result may be obtained using components (minerals) of the sample that contain different amounts of 87Rb.
-----------
Thanks
-
Kent Hovind himself actually proves evolution -
He was so dumb he couldn't survive, hence he is now in jail, removing himself from the gene pool.
For an 'Intelligent Designer' to come up with an ambassador for himself like Kent Hovind, well, says a lot huh.
OK if the Earth / universe is only 6000 odd years long explain this -
How is it possible to see stars that are millions/billions of light years away?
Their light wouldn't have even reached us.
Don't know what was scarier, his BS, or the fact people were cheering and applauding him.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Don't know what was scarier, his BS, or the fact people were cheering and applauding him.
Definately the cheering and applauding.
-
LOL HBO was running a marathon of "Da Ali G Show" to support Cohen's "Borat" and in one of the round table discussions Ali had Kent Hovind on there. zomg he was ****ing with him something awful. The last straw was Ali accused Hovind of taking a crap before the show backstage and not flushing. Hovind was beside himself ahaha.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Stang
LOL HBO was running a marathon of "Da Ali G Show" to support Cohen's "Borat" and in one of the round table discussions Ali had Kent Hovind on there. zomg he was ****ing with him something awful. The last straw was Ali accused Hovind of taking a crap before the show backstage and not flushing. Hovind was beside himself ahaha.
:rofl
man, i loved that show. i wish he'd do a new series. haven't seen ali G here for 3 years :(
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
OK if the Earth / universe is only 6000 odd years long explain this -
How is it possible to see stars that are millions/billions of light years away?
Their light wouldn't have even reached us.
Don't know what was scarier, his BS, or the fact people were cheering and applauding him.
That's an easy one. The stars are actually much closer, and light actually travels much faster than 300,000 Kilometers per second. All of our experiments and data-gathering has yielded erroneous results because it is god, once again, testing our faith.
You'd think that an all-knowing, all-powerful being would have something better to do with his time than continually trick a bunch of barely-cognizant insects living on a dustball. I've come up with three potential explanations for his behavior:
1.) He's very childish
2.) He's really lacking in the creativity department
3.) The bible thumpers are both very childish and lacking in the creativity department
-
Originally posted by bozon
I watched one of the other episodes where he talks about big-bang theory and creation of the universe. The man either doesn't understand physics at all or simply ignore it and lies to the crowd. The mess he made out cosmology and astrophysics was hillarious.
If you pay close attention to the first one. He actually makes the claim to have taught physics.
Couple of my own problems with his comments.
He keeps mentioning how this scientist or that are saying somethign they"beleive to be true" Because they couldnt have actually known them to be true for factr because they werent actually there"
Well in pointing out his so called "facts" isnt he also simply saying he is only saying what he "beleives to be true" for the same exact reasons?
Second point. IF Noah Did as he claims in "Only taking one two af the same KIND of animal" he himself must then admit to the evolutionary proccess in order to have acheived all the different species and sub species of animal in the world today
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Second point. IF Noah Did as he claims in "Only taking one two af the same KIND of animal" he himself must then admit to the evolutionary proccess in order to have acheived all the different species and sub species of animal in the world today
yup, the guy is a total fool.
i do believe in god and all actually, but the whole creation story, like much of the bible is probably a metaphor. people who take it literally are pretty stupid. what always had me thinking philosophically was the big bang (i'm a scientist really, and i totally believe in the big bang and all of the theories of astrophysics)
what always makes me think is the origins of the universe. the big bang was a minute explosion, but so energetic that it created the universe...
E = MC2 here... take all the mass in the universe, multiply it by the speed of light squared, and that gives you the amount of energy that is contained in just the matter of the universe. add to that number all of the other types of energy going on
that's a pretty much INFINITE amount of energy, all originating from an explosion infinitely small...
kind of mind boggling actually... i don't think any aetheist scientist can explain that one...
-
Nor can we explain gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process. Unfortunately, science can be corrupted as much as religion. I think a lot of people want to substitute science for some mythological religion with all the brances of science making one or another lesser god where people can go for answers and expect 'true knowledge'.
Unfortunately, science was created by humans (which some can say the same of religion) and is intertwined with money and politics (again some can say the same of religion). So, do we believe science or religion?
I think part of the answer is how you were brought up and how much you know about science. Newton, who was a closet alchemist, was more of a true scientist in his belief and trust in science. You have to trust in science, or it doesn't make any sense. By that I mean some things you must take on faith. A faith in science.
Science is continually trying to answer questions about the cosmos, our past, who we are, where we came from, how we can be saved... all questions that religion typically answers. And science, as a discipline, is distorted in the process and made to be something it is not.
The belief that man came from apes based on the theory of evolution is not conclusive and is a misuse of science. Offering the rhetoric of evolution is the goal of science, but making it appear conclusive is not. We believe there are other planets like ours in the cosmos because we exist. There is no evidence. Similarly, we have not found a human being before a certain time based on carbon14 dating so we say they didn't exist. Where is the consistency in that thinking?
Some can argue that all that happened before mankind became 'sentient' is not described in the bible and that modern humans are the result of god. Dinosaurs, like many other things, aren't mentioned because they are not relevent. However, I think ministers and defenders of the bible who think the earth is 11,000 years old are mistaken and maybe need more faith in science.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
We believe there are other planets like our in the cosmos because we exist. There is no evidence.
Yet. The more we look, the more we find. It's very difficult to spot an Earth sized planet around a distant star. We HAVE found rocky planets though. If memory serves me correct they are also much larger than the earth, but there is proof that terrestrial planets exist beyond the solar system.
-
The cosmos is fascinating, and we are really sophisticated (and getting better) about examining it. While there is a 'probablity' of life bearing planets in distant solar systems (based on the fact there are so many), we aren't quite sophisticated enough to know if they have life or even liquid water. If we could just find a planet with liquid water, or a substantial amount of water (in any form), certainly a probe to the planet would be launched. So far, the earth is unique.
Astronomers and related scientists tend to police themselves pretty well. Rubbish isn't well received and publishing statements without sufficient evidence that isn't repeatable is rubbish. It would be really cool if another planet existed that we could say had liquid water!
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process.
not really, multiple methods come up with the same results
Unfortunately, science was created by humans (which some can say the same of religion) and is intertwined with money and politics (again some can say the same of religion). So, do we believe science or religion?
Science is a process of gather evidence, form hypothesis, test, publish, verify, modify, test, etc... It's conclusions are based only on evidence and are repeatable by anyone with the requisite skills & knowledge. If it's not repeatable, then it's discarded or reworked (cold fusion) and is therfore self correcting eventually (Piltdown man). Science works.
Science is continually trying to answer questions about the cosmos, our past, who we are, where we came from, how we can be saved... all questions that religion typically answers.
Mankind has tried to answer those questions with 10,000 different, inconsistent, unverifiable stories. The one you're told is the one you believe. btw science has nothing to say about how you can be saved, no data, untestable, no science.
And science, as a discipline, is distorted in the process and made to be something it is not.
Science is only distorted by those whose fables are destroyed by reality
The belief that man came from apes based on the theory of evolution is not conclusive and is a misuse of science.
You are still an ape
-
Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process. We believe there are other planets like our in the cosmos because we exist. There is no evidence. Similarly, we have not found a human being before a certain time based on carbon14 dating so we say they didn't exist. Where is the consistency in that thinking?
Ok, use my Banded Ironstone. It is a Metamorphosed Sedimentary Rock that is from a formation that existed in the Pre-Cambrian Era (3.6 Million Years Ago). No Carbon-14 dating needed. I have also heard the "carbon dating" thing from the same friend. :)
Pangea didn't exist either. But explain to me how the Andes, Sierra Madre Oriental (Mexico on the Eastern side), Appalachians (Alabama to Newfoundland), Anti-Alas Range in Morocco, and the English "Highlands" all comprise of the same Rock types (Basalt and Andesite)?
Geology is one of the more accurate "Sciences" out there. I'm sorry but the Earth of 4 million years ago, has left a bunch of clues as to what happened. No carbon dating method is needed.
-
While I agree geology is a science and reasonably accurate, the dates and timelines are based on Carbon 14 dating as outlined in:
http://www.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
Any kind of radioactive decay is based on probablity. Any probability based event is not 100% certain, hence the name. That doesn't mean it is unrealistic, but it is uncertain.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by stantond
There is some uncertainty in the scientific dating process. Unfortunately, science can be corrupted as much as religion. I think a lot of people want to substitute science for some mythological religion with all the brances of science making one or another lesser god where people can go for answers and expect 'true knowledge'.
Actually no. One of my professors defined exact science very well (freely translated):
"exact science is a field of study where you can tell exactly by how much you are wrong".
The problem is with people no understanding what uncertainty is. Lets say I'm measuring my height. I'm 2 m tall, but is that exact? so I use a better measuring tape that has cm units on it and find I'm 1.83. I can use better and better methods to improve the measurement but I'll never be exact, there is some uncertainty.
If I use a cm measuring tape and get 1.83 m, I'm pretty certain that I'm not 2m even if my hand was shaking a little, I didn't hold the tape completely straight and my eye sight is not great so I can confuse near by markings. Exact science will attempt to quantify these errors and will ALWAYS give an error estimate to any measurement. These uncertainty estimates can be given a statistical meaning of "confidence level".
This is also why science attempt different methods of measuring the same things. If the results disagree by much more than their uncertainties it means that at least one of the methods if faulty and both need re-checking. When several methods agree within their uncertainties, we can have great confidence in the result.
Any kind of radioactive decay is based on probablity. Any probability based event is not 100% certain, hence the name. That doesn't mean it is unrealistic, but it is uncertain.
Again this is faulty interpretation of "uncertainty". Probability also has a variance, so you can tell not only what will happen on the expected average but also what is the probability to get a result far from the average. This probability drops as the statistical sample gets bigger. When you deal with atoms, you are dealing with a sample of typically 10 to the power of 23 atoms per gram. Even if the rate of decay is small (very very small compared with the time length of measurement) such a huge sample gives such a small statistical error that it can be neglected compared to other sources of errors like weighting or decay counter efficiency or other things.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
OK if the Earth / universe is only 6000 odd years long explain this -
How is it possible to see stars that are millions/billions of light years away?
Their light wouldn't have even reached us.
Maybe he's a fan of the cosmological inflation theory? :D
-
Originally posted by bozon
Maybe he's a fan of the cosmological inflation theory? :D
LOL, I think he actually claims in one of his 'lectures', it is a closed universe.
Current thinking is that it will continue to expand and expand, there will be no big crunch.
-
Originally posted by stantond
Any kind of radioactive decay is based on probablity. Any probability based event is not 100% certain, hence the name. That doesn't mean it is unrealistic, but it is uncertain.
The "age" of something "dated with Radioactive Atoms" is off by such a minimal number, I disagree with your statement.
-
Hehe, this goes down to Noah:
"Only taking one two af the same KIND of animal"
From a breeders perspective that is actually not ... possible. Sorry, Inbreeding will stop this.
Of course, if we belive the bible absolutely we have to deal with inbreeding and the fact of brothers and sister marrying to make it clear. Somehow,,,naaa.
As for the "accuracy of measuerments, no one here can accurately state his or her height, for it also differers between morning and evening....
-
Some day we will all know, or not know, the "Truth" of things. This will depend on what transpires post mortem.
At any rate, I suspect that no one on this planet (past or present) has the full scoop.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nor can we explain gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Good point.
Alert! Alert! Alert! Gravity does work!
-
I never understood those that need to see the Bible taken 100 percent literally. I think these people just show how insecure they are in their faith. They just look silly trying to prove the impossible, and getting into "fights" with science over things like the Dinasours, and how old the world is ect...
-
Originally posted by Squire
I never understood those that need to see the Bible taken 100 percent literally. I think these people just show how insecure they are in their faith. They just look silly trying to prove the impossible, and getting into "fights" with science over things like the Dinasours, and how old the world is ect...
How correct you are. There is no proving it. One has faith in whatever one believes. I have my own personal proofs. They lend me to believe there is something out there. I shan't burden anyone with these.
-
Originally posted by Squire
I never understood those that need to see the Bible taken 100 percent literally. I think these people just show how insecure they are in their faith. They just look silly trying to prove the impossible, and getting into "fights" with science over things like the Dinasours, and how old the world is ect...
Yep, I agree.