I remember growing up and feeling bad for the people that tried to be perfect all the time. They would set immeasurable standards for themselves and, sub consciously, for others that happened to be around them. Needless to say, such demanding a criterion was never met. Whenever failure presented itself to these people, they would scold themselves for not being perfect. Their entire lives would be put on hold as they fell into pits of depression for not being the right dress size or not getting an A on every single test they took. Such individuals were quite the sights for sore eyes.
During my childhood, I was bombarded with the lovely concept that mistakes happen and that they are truly unavoidable (the analogy of death and taxes comes to mind). What really matters, my teachers and parents would incessantly remind me, is that you learn from your mistakes so as to not fall victim to them again.
Science is blessed in possessing such an ideology. Religion, however, is not.
In all the times I've come into contact with a form of science I've been intrigued and mesmerized at the wonders of the things that surround me. I could describe such experiences as enlightening, humbling and even jaw-droppingly awe-inspiring. But, I would have never attributed the word "beauty" as an adjective to science. It never really came to my mind and if it had, I would have most likely shrugged it off without too much attention.
But, this is where the true beauty of science lies. It is allowed to be wrong. I could even go as far as saying that at times it is even required to be wrong, leading us one step closer to what is inevitably right and true. There have been so many wonderful and imaginative theories that have come our way because of science. Most have been proven, by science, to be untrue. What I personally find amazing is that the most wonderful and the most imaginative and the most elaborate theories have been the ones that have withstood the rigor of proof and evidence on the road to being truthful.
Take our solar system, for example. Two thousand years ago, humans would have been astoundingly baffled by the "theory" that our planet is one of a group that circles this giant ball of gas that doesn't seem so giant or "gassy" in the sky. They would have surely laughed at this elaborate idea and deemed it to be the work dreams and imaginative thinking. Many theories explaining our Earth and its relation to the Sun and the Moon and the other planets have been suggested. They have all been slowly proven to be untrue until, with the furthering of science, we can be certain that what we believe to be correct today truly is. The undeniable, unfalsifiable and incomparable beauty of science at its best; always asking, always probing and always scrutinizing.
Then, on the other end of the spectrum, we have religion. Each, or at least most, comes with some sort of book that explains everything and abundantly supplies its adherers with all the knowledge of the world, heaven, hell and all the in-betweens. I honestly don't see why we can't title such holy books as "ultimate how-to's on...everything!"
Most of them, unfortunately, were written a long time before science could even have a say in the matter. And with the development of science, most of the stories told in such books have gone from being considered the "one and only ultimate truth" to highly suspect and, at times, downright absurd and clearly untrue. But religion, of course, cannot go back and instruct Moses to change the whole "six day theory" because the Earth most certainly is not merely 6,000 years old. Nay, they cannot travel back in time and tell the Middle Eastern men who wrote the Old Testament that dinosaurs existed and that they might want to include them when passing off their works as the "words of god."
Religion, with all the lovely amounts of dogma that come along with it, is forced to reconcile scientific truth with their beliefs if they want to retain them. They aren't blessed with the notion that everyone makes mistakes and that they can be fixed and altered. These books and the believers peddling them are compelled to come up with fickle theories and absurd claims to explain the old age of our Earth, continental drift, the "theory" of evolution and so many more scientifically proven truths. My personal favorite of these irrational theories that attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is the notion that dinosaurs did exist and lived happily with humans in same 6,000 year time span that the Earth has supposedly been around for (one cannot help but think of the Flintstones here)!
It is the job of science to question and scrutinize itself, constantly looking for possible errors and mistakes that may have gone untraced. Scientists the world over disagree on many things (such an idea may come as a wonderful thing to the apologist) and probe each other’s works. And when they are wrong, far from falling into depression like the perfectionists I grew up with, they get back up to the drawing board and start over again in seeking for the next, more elaborate theory that is surely to be the correct one. Unmistakably, this is the beauty of science at its most beautiful.
the Earth most certainly is not merely 6,000 years old.>> That depends on where your starting point is.
ReplyDeletethey cannot travel back in time and tell the Middle Eastern men who wrote the Old Testament that dinosaurs existed and that they might want to include them when passing off their works as the "words of god.">> Gen 1:25; Job 40,41; Isaiah 27:1
My personal favorite of these irrational theories that attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable is the notion that dinosaurs did exist and lived happily with humans in same 6,000 year time span that the Earth has supposedly been around for (one cannot help but think of the Flintstones here)!>> It's true that the word Dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible ever. However, one would be quite foolish to say that Dinosaurs didn't co-exist with humans. Job 40:15, all the way until the end of chapter 41. Now you read those verses(I know its a lot, but its very interesting) and then tell me that God wasn't talking about dinosaurs. Also, it wasn't until after the flood that God permitted man to eat meat(Gen 9:2,3),up until that point, men were vegetarian. And we can see from the verses in Job I posted earlier that the Behemoth was a vegetarian. With all that being said, I find it to be very realistic that men and dinosaurs co-existed.
It all has to do with your starting point. If you are looking at the earth from a non-Biblical perspective, you're gonna come up with billions of years. It's as simple as that. However, if you look at the earth from a Biblical perspective, you can clearly see that yes, dinosaurs co-existed with humans, and yes, the earth is indeed 6,000 years old. But like I said, it all comes down to interpretation and starting points.
Hola,
ReplyDeleteThe genesis verse speaks of how god made animals "According to their kind." I really dont see the relevance with dinosaurs etc.
The Isaiah verse describes a serpent, the "monster of the sea." With the vagueness and ambiguity of the words there, im sure one could find creatures in the oceans today that fit the profile. It doesnt describe dinosaurs, or dinosaur like creatures (because the word didnt exist back then).
The job verse is also very interesting. But it can be explained with in the same manner as the Isaih verse. Vague language and unspecific adjectives. However, is that what the bible is thought!? Allegorical language and metaphors. It is NOT a scientific text that can be used to describe creatures accurately (especially ones that didnt exist when it was written).
With all that said, it is practically impossible for dinosaurs and humans to co exist because of the very nature of dinosaurs. Some are veggies. Some....aren't. The bible tells us when man was permitted to eat meat, etc. but i argue that the history of the earth says that isn't so.
We were hunter gatherers and eat what we could. All before the bible was written.
"It all has to do with your starting point. If you are looking at the earth from a non-Biblical perspective, you're gonna come up with billions of years. It's as simple as that." > Sure. But there is a reason science NEVER uses your biblical perspective. Because an allegorical text written just a mere few thousand years ago shouldn't be expected to provide scientific insight. Its just unfair. And when fundamentalists try to argue such things (like the age of the earth) they always end up facing a wealth of evidence (all of which can and is repeated as we discover more and more of our earth).
I think the science community is glad that not all Christians are fundamentalists. It'd be a real pain if we had creation "museums" popping up everywhere and taking advantage of young, uninformed minds.
im sure one could find creatures in the oceans today that fit the profile. >> Many fish today breath fire?(Job 41:18-21)
ReplyDeleteVague language and unspecific adjectives. >>"His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron."(Job 40:17,18) How many animals can you think of that have tails the width of a cedar tree? Or that has massive bones like tubes of bronze? Sounds a lot like a brontosaurus to me. Just saying...
It's perfectly realistic for dinosaurs and humans to have lived together at the same time. Just think about it for a sec, it's only logical. Rewind the clocks a few thousand years....the population of the earth was SIGNIFICANTLY less. That makes it easy for dinosaurs and humans not to have had too much contact( it seems that ur suggesting that the dinosaurs would eat all of the people) with each other and lived together quite peacefully. Seriously dude, if the animals living on earth TODAY wanted to, they could easily annihilate the human race. It wouldn’t even be a competition. They haven’t so far; in fact, their quite friendly to the human race. The only time they actually DO become aggressive towards humans is if we invade territory that they are inhabiting, or if they are sick. Whose to say that dinosaurs couldn’t have behaved similar?
science NEVER uses your biblical perspective>> I know of a few people who would gladly disagree with you.
an allegorical text written just a mere few thousand years ago shouldn't be expected to provide scientific insight.>> I agree! But the Bible is more than just an allegorical text written a few thousand years ago. Thats also part of what makes the Bible so amazing. You wouldn't EXPECT it to provide scientific insight, but it DOES. On just about everything in every branch of science(and thats science in its original true form, not evolutionist science).
It'd be a real pain if we had creation "museums" popping up everywhere and taking advantage of young, uninformed minds.>> It is CURRENTLY a pain that we have evolutionist "museums" popping up everywhere and taking advantage of young, uninformed minds.
Many fish today breath fire?(Job 41:18-21) < I was referring to the Isiah verse. Dont mix things up. If you chose to believe fish breath fire, then you may do say at the expense of the logic and rationality that our creator bestowed you with. Use them.
ReplyDeleteSounds a lot like a brontosaurus to me. < Thats the beautiful thing about the bible, you can make anything sound like anything. It's vague, yes. It describes fantastical creatures that did not exist when moses, or whoever else, was writing.
That makes it easy for dinosaurs and humans not to have had too much contact. < You are speculating...a LOT. There were less humans, but you have not a shred of evidence as to where they would both live (i honestly cant believe im arguing this). If you would study the history of the earth, continental drift tells us that we were ALL in one region of the earth before splitting and letting evolution take charge according to the differnet enviroments created.
if the animals living on earth TODAY wanted to, they could easily annihilate the human race. > .......really, nathan? Really. Think about what you just said.
I know of a few people who would gladly disagree with you. < Id love for you to share. You cant make a point without....making a point. lol
You wouldn't EXPECT it to provide scientific insight, but it DOES. < Apart from some historical references that are correct....what?
original true form, not evolutionist science). < Science was founded a few centuries ago. Do NOT kid yourself with that statement. It's very incorrect.
What saddens me is that the only reason you are hostile to evolution is becuuse you just 'dont like it' and it doesnt fit with what you already believe.
evolutionist "museums" popping up everywhere and taking advantage of young, uninformed minds. < If what you're referring to as evolution musuems is EVERY SINGLE HISTORICAL MUSEUM ON EARTH. Then yes :) Im glad we have them, who do actual scientific research and dig up the FACTS that you simply do not want to accept, as opposed to the silly ppl in kentucky who read the bible, then put humans n dino's together.
I know, but since Job was written before Isaiah that's completely irrelevant. The point was(and IS) that God is describing an extinct creature VERY SIMILAR to a dinosaur. I believe that some sort of fish-like creature BREATHED fire(dragon come to mind? maybe the Loch Ness monster?). Emphasis on the e-d at the end there. Past tense. I believe they are extinct now. Another thing, those verses I shared, they were God describing the Leviathan and the Behemoth to Job in order to show Job how pathetic he was in comparison. God was trying (I think) to show Job that if he couldn't even take on one of his creations, how he could he even CONSIDER taking on God himself; because up until that point, Job was questioning God and why terrible things were happening to him(I didn't realize this was Sunday school, you claim to have read the Bible; I find absolutely no reason to believe you. Me having to explain this stuff to you, simply confirms all of that doubt).
ReplyDeleteYou are speculating...a LOT.>> Science is speculation, my friend. Where would we be without speculation and theories? Nowhere.
The history of the earth talks about a super-continent before the rest broke away, before tectonic plate movement separated the giant land mass, yes. Still, PLENTY of room for humans and dinos to have lived more or less peacefully with each other like we do today with the current species of animalia or whatever that roam the earth. All it means is that all of the continents were at one time, connected.
we were ALL in one region of the earth before splitting and letting evolution take charge >> and I suppose God put us there right? Lol dude. Ur worse than I am about pulling that God card. Even if that is true, it doesn't affect anything. I believe that the Dino's died out after the flood. A lot of those Dino's died in the flood. Noah didn't save them all, and so, I think because their weren't enough animals for the Dino's to eat, they died off fairly rapidly. Once again, more speculation a.k.a a theory. Can't prove it's true, but you can't prove that it's false either.
Ok. Fair is fair. It wouldn't be easy. But they could still pull it off.:)
Apart from some historical references that are correct....what?>> That is an excellent question for the Creation Museum.
What saddens me is that the only reason you are hostile to evolution is becuuse you just 'dont like it' and it doesnt fit with what you already believe. >> Same could be said of you and Christianity.
evolutionist museums who do actual scientific research and dig up the FACTS>>dig up the facts? what facts are they digging up? There are no 'facts' being dug up. Evolutionists haven't been able to find a SINGLE fossil of a species that is in the process of evolving. Not a single one. If evolution is true, the world would be RIDDLED with these half evolved creatures' fossils. It isn't. Like I said, they haven't been able to find a SINGLE fossil of an "in-between" of ANY kind. If anyone is ignoring facts, it is evolutionists.
I know, but since Job was written before Isaiah that's completely irrelevant.> If its irrelevant, dont say anything and pretend to make a point.
ReplyDeleteThe point was(and IS) that God is describing an extinct creature VERY SIMILAR to a dinosaur. > Similiar, eh? Yes, maybe similiar. NOT the same. Dinasaurs died out before humans came around. There are animals today which are "similar."
maybe the Loch Ness monster?). > The.....really? You must be kidding here. The loch ness monster? A WELL KNOWN myth. Why am i not surprised.
you claim to have read the Bible; I find absolutely no reason to believe you. Me having to explain this stuff to you, simply confirms all of that doubt). > You have NO reason to explain any of that.... It doesnt make a point or refute one of mine. You just....said it. You're beleiving whether ive read the bible or not bares not relevance to me of this blog. The fact of the matter is ur not making any point here.
speculation and theories > those are two VERY DIFFERNT words. Dont you dare go about equating science and religion. You're wasting ur time and looking foolish. Look up the definitions of those two words, k.
PLENTY of room for humans and dinos to have lived more or less peacefully with each other > NO, you're escapting ur previous point which i just proved to be wrong. You said they werent neccesaruly close to eachother....except, they were. You're providing NO assertion for why they would have lived "peacfuly together."
like we do today with the current species of animalia > Dinasaurs are VASTLY differnt to the animals which we have dominion over today. If you're arguing that FACT, then idk what else to tell you.
Ur worse than I am about pulling that God card. > I never pull the god card. I also never use it when arguing becuase it is unprovable, therefor is a faulty point.
Once again, more speculation a.k.a a theory. > Two differnt words. I wish you'd do your homework.
Can't prove it's true, but you can't prove that it's false either. > It makes me happy you're resorting to that coz u have nothing else to argue.
That is an excellent question for the Creation Museum. > (They arent a museum) You're arguing here, pony up bud.
Same could be said of you and Christianity. > Actually, no. I read about it and of it and IT as opposed to being indoctrinated then blindly arguing it. I also provide proof why the bible cant be trusted and is false. You, however, deny science becuase....it doesnt fit with what you already "know." Big differnce; dont equate us again unless its true.
dig up the facts? what facts are they digging up? > Go to a real museum, open ur eyes, shut up that little voice in ur head that still wants to blindly believe and you may see.
Evolutionists haven't been able to find a SINGLE fossil of a species that is in the process of evolving. > Your ignorance concerning the evolutionary process astounds me. It is IMPOSSIBLE to witness evolution in ONE species or fossile. Changes occur from one species to the next, as is proven by the wealth of fossils that link us with our closest cousin on earth, the chimpanzee. Try learning about evolution somewhere else that creationist "museums" n sites.
the world would be RIDDLED with these half evolved creatures' fossils. > No, it wouldnt. The ones that evolve into smth then die out, they dont exist anymore. So no, no "riddling", buddy.
fossil of an "in-between" of ANY kind > Check my facebook page for the latest one. Also, go to a musem and ......bla bla bla. The inbetweens have been found, for decades now. You just chose to believe they are 'satan testing your precious faith.' And its ur right to do so, at the expense of the logic and rationality that our creator provided you.
There are animals today which are "similar.">> No actually, there aren't.
ReplyDeleteA WELL KNOWN myth.>> Maybe so. Like I said I think they are extinct, so....whatever.
You have NO reason to explain any of that>> Yes actually I do. You can't go parading around telling people that u have read the Bible when, well...you haven't. It completely rules you out of having legitimate arguments. Any noob can pick out a passage and argue it.
OK fine. Fair is fair, speculation leads to theories. :) there.
You're providing NO assertion for why they would have lived "peacfuly together.">> Yes I have and I'm not going to repeat it, u'll just ignore it.
I never pull the god card.its a faulty point. >> Where did the matter from the Big Bang come from again? Oh thats right! YOU said GOD created it!! Now I remember. Guess evolution is pretty faulty then.
Dinasaurs are VASTLY differnt to the animals which we have dominion over today.>> Yes, and??
They arent a museum>> You're in denial. They very much are.
I also provide proof why the bible cant be trusted and is false.>> No you haven't. Dude, the reason why I don't trust evolution is because I can disprove the ENTIRE theory of billions of years with this:If the earth was billions of years old, the ocean would be solid and we would be able to walk across the Atlantic. A point I mentioned a LONG time ago, that you ignored and moved on with smth completely different. If anyone is in denial, its you. Wake up and smell the coffee.
It is IMPOSSIBLE to witness evolution in ONE species or fossile.>> Of course it is, you can't "prove" evolution is happening unless you can find a tooth from each species that is similar. Or a little bone, or because the eye sockets are of similar size and shape. You people are just pathetic.
No, it wouldnt. The ones that evolve into smth then die out, they dont exist anymore. So no, no "riddling", buddy.>> Ummm, yes riddling, buddy. They die out, and leave a fossil. Bones don't just cease to exist.unless of course, GOD made them disappear!> that's actually what some people tell me. Its so pathetic.
go to a musem and ......bla bla bla. The inbetweens have been found, for decades now. >> Like I've said before. I've been to more museums during my life than I care to count. They ALL have this bull about monkey-men, claim to have found this "Lucy" or whoever, that is an inbetween fossil that we can observe in Exhibit B. Yeah...Lucy was made of plastic. Every time, in Every museum. Main thing is dude, there should be fossils EVERYWHERE. We should see inbetweens TODAY. We don't.
No actually, there aren't. > Really, buddy? Crocodiles? The MANY lizards? Really.... gosh, i wish you'd stop just denying things coz u dont like them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe so. Like I said I think they are extinct, so....whatever. > Yeah....lets just pretend u didnt try to use the "lock nes" to prove a point. Moving onnnnnn
It completely rules you out of having legitimate arguments. Any noob can pick out a passage and argue it. > Oh nathan, i do read it. But doesnt it sadden u that tahts all it takes to see the folly of ur belief....
speculation leads to theories > I guess this is the product of learning science at phs. OBSERVATIONS lead to PATTERNS which formulate theories. Like the "thoery of gravity" or the "theory of evolution."
Yes I have and I'm not going to repeat it > NO, freind. You said they would becuase they wouldnt neccesarily live near eachother (coz u know FULL WELL it wouldnt end badly) which i PROVED WRONG because of continental drift. So yah, you dont have to repeat smth when ur wrong.
YOU said GOD created it!! > Lol, you really are petty. You asked me that in facebook msg and i answered. Its my belief. i have NO proof for that, which is why i never use it in debate. Which is....what i just said. I guess you were too excited to notice that in thinking u actually made a point. You didnt.
Yes, and?? > You said they'd be the same like the animals today are. But, you just agreed tehy were vastly differnt. Dangit! You didnt just contradict urself AGAIN did u bud....? Sigh
You're in denial. They very much are. > Presenting falshood with NO evidence makes them false. They read the bible and.....sigh... put dinos with humans. No evidence, just assertions (much like ur argumentation). They're phonies. Stop being in denial ;)
:If the earth was billions of years old, the ocean would be solid and we would be able to walk across the Atlantic. A point I mentioned a LONG time ago > Lol, i didnt move on bud. Stop making tihngs up. I proved ur silly theory wrong...back then!
you can find a tooth from each species that is similar. > They can...and they have. Not EVERY species (an impossible you "pathetic people" have set in order to keep beleiving ur fairy tales) becuase thats...impossible. We;re lucky to have the evidence we do know. I praise the lord for providing at least that for us so rational ppl can see the folly of your "pathetic people."
and leave a fossil. > Yes, fossils tht have been found! Gosh. Go to a museum and opennnnn your eyes....bla bla bla. You know the rest by now right?
.Lucy was made of plastic. Every time, in Every museum > You're really silly sometimes buddy. Ofcourse she's plastic in most musems! Tere's only one real one!!!! Yes? Ok. I wish you were more subtle in ur display of ignorance. Really.
there should be fossils EVERYWHERE > There really shouldnt. We have NO idea where they'd be (especially in the layers UNDER the ocean). And we've only been looking for.....not that long. Yet new ones keep apearing (here i refer you to my facebook page again). You just keep denying them.
Am i really the one in deial here nathan. You've claimed to have seen lucey, the inbetween. And you just deny it, coz uwere in a museum that didnt have the origianl. You're a joke sometimes. Stop denying it and "smell the coffee." (as u so eloquntly like to put it, feigning confidence in substitute of ur lack of evidence and citations)
Crocodiles?>> vs the loch ness monster? yeah I personally wouldn't say that they are too similar. But thats just me.
ReplyDeleteYeah....lets just pretend u didnt try to use the "lock nes" to prove a point. >> no need. The point is still there. God was describing a "sea monster" I would consider Nessy to be a sea monster. Just because she may be extinct now doesn't mean she didn't exist before. move on if you'd like.
doesnt it sadden u that tahts all it takes to see the folly of ur belief>> what saddens me is that u think that u can understand the Bible by reading a few verses that seem to highlight contradiction. Have u ever taken an hour+ study of the Bible with a pastor or preacher? My guess would be no, so I suggest you take one. After you have, THEN u'll understand more or less why I think you know basically nothing at the current time.
OBSERVATIONS lead to PATTERNS which formulate theories>> OBSERVATIONS lead to PATTERNS which leads to SPECULATION on how smth works, which formulate theories.
You said they would becuase they wouldnt neccesarily live near each other>> and also because we can OBSERVE the behavior of animals today, detect PATTERNS in behavior, and formulate theories(speculation) on how they would behave in certain situations. My speculation(theory/observation/detection of a pattern) is that because animals today aren't violent towards humans unless aggravated; dinosaurs wouldn't have been either. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck wouldn't be aggravating a 30ft+ tall(and/or long) lizard; I would probably just leave it be.
Ofcourse she's plastic in most musems!>> most museums which claim to have the real one. I rest my case.
There really shouldnt......Yet new ones keep apearing>>You're a joke sometimes(as you so eloquently put it, feigning confidence in substitute of ur lack of evidence and citations). We shouldn't find them...yet we're finding them! and you call me contradictory.
loch ness monster? yeah I personally wouldn't say that they are too similar. But thats just me. > Are you kidding me? Still with the loch ness? Gheez, its a mythhhh fellow bretherin. As fa as ur opinion on whether a crod resembles dinasaurs, i care not for it. You know it does and ur chosing to slyly comment that u dont think it does highlights ur unwillingness to acccept anything.
ReplyDeleteGod was describing a "sea monster" I would consider Nessy to be a sea monster. > You're really doing a great job of highlighting ur ignoraance. This is a joke.
what saddens me is that u think > I dont think because i have read it. Yet, it stil does sadden that all it would take is SOBER AND UNBIASED perusal of the myth to notice it is man made and wishful thinking.
OBSERVATIONS lead to PATTERNS which leads to SPECULATION on how smth works, which formulate theories > You are ver confused is all i can say. What this does highlight, however, is how HARD you try to on clinching onto smth because u think it makes u look right and the rest of the scientific world look wrong. I would bet my house that if u werent raised christian and didnt have these disgusting biases, you'd reject these myths quicker than i have.
and also because we can OBSERVE the behavior of animals today > Yet, you agreed they are "Vastly differnt." Nathan....you're contradicting urself again, are you?
dinosaurs wouldn't have been either > But....they're vastly differnt!? Oh goodness....again with the self contradictory argumentation!? C'mon now :(
most museums which claim to have the real one. I rest my case. > You're very foolish if u believe a museum would claim to have the real one if they didnt. VERY. FOOLISH. also....
You contradicted urself yet again coz u said u didnt believe in her coz uve only seen plastic ones, yet u just acknowledged there is a real one. Nathan.... please. This is getting far too easy.
We shouldn't find them...yet we're finding them! and you call me contradictory. > Contradictory? I think not fellow brethern. We SHOULDNT find them becuase of the statistical probability of digging the EXACT area where they lie. Yet, we have. Its amazing. ALSO....
You wanna talk about contradictions, buddy. Here's your third:
In you're previous blog u said we havent found. Yet, in that last paragraph u just acknowledged that, and i quote, "we're finding them!"
If you actually concentrated on the subject as opposed to helping mollify ur personal beleif from my "Attacks", then you wouldnt make a fool of urself...as much. Please now, take a minute and fight the indoctrination which has u denying evidence, like a fool, and arguing smth with no evidential basis. Yes? Splendid.
You know it does and ur chosing to slyly comment that u dont think it does>> srsly man. A friggin crock Vs. Nessy. And just FYI, a creature like nessy DID in fact exist. Your museums helped me with that. They have a display of one in the main hall. They call it an elasmosaurus, a type of plesiosaur. They also claim to have Nessy-like remains. Here is a picture I though looked kinda like a nessy moster; only smaller: http://www.oddee.com/item_79915.aspx >> Its number ten on that list.
ReplyDeleteI dont think because i have read it.>> all hail Elird, king of reading things once and completely understanding, without a shadow of a doubt, the meaning behind the words. Ur so full of yourself man. Ease up on the ego. It will make you sound less like a jerk. Especially in front of your followers and readers man, goodness.
You are ver confused is all i can say>> maybe so.
if u werent raised christian and didnt have these disgusting biases, you'd reject these myths quicker than i have.>> well thank God I was raised Christian then! :)
Nathan....you're contradicting urself again, are you? >> Nope. Ur pulling pieces of my sentences out of context......again. What a shocker. The audience can comment if they think I am being contradictory.
You're very foolish if u believe a museum would claim to have the real one if they didnt.>> well, they did. idk what to tell you.
We SHOULDNT find them becuase of the statistical probability of digging the EXACT area where they lie. Yet, we have. Its amazing.>> If you consider a pinky bone, and a single tooth between 2 species that is similar, to be substantial evidence than yes, you very well have. You also have found knobs on a 40ft long whale and have passed those off for legs linking the whales back to some kind of land-mammal.
You wanna talk about contradictions, buddy. Here's your third>> 1st off, thats not a contradiction. See paragraph 4 for an explanation as to why. 2nd, ur turning this into a pissing contest. It really is getting old.
, a creature like nessy DID in fact exist. > I enjoy seeing u retract ur previous comments by using the word "like." At least ur not completely crazy.
ReplyDeleteNo 10 on the list was the Long-nosed Chimaera.... which has absolutely nothing to do with the "nessy" you seem to be so fond of.
You are ver confused is all i can say>> maybe so. > The first step to change is acceptance. There may be hope yet for you bud.
well thank God I was raised Christian then! :) > You'd thank him for being raised to deny facts, argue smth without any evidence and in the face of contrary, superior evidence.... If i were you id be cursing him. But, i guess you must believe ignorance is bliss.
Ur pulling pieces of my sentences out of context > I love how ur using context to explain ur own comments! It was made to somehow explain the silliness of a text written thousands of years ago but u need it for smth you said a few days ago? Now thats a shock my freind. All i did was highlight what u said. You not accepting that is nothing new.
well, they did. idk what to tell you. > Nathan.... they didnt. That is stupid. EVERYONE would call them out on it and they wouldnt exist anymore. Stop being foolish. Also, it pleases me greatly that ur no longer arguing that lucey doesnt exist. Im glad. Thats progress, however small.
pinky bone, and a single tooth between 2 species that is similar > There's a lot more than that, and u know it. But yes! It is amazing and we are lucky. One would think that ur type would need evidence to be convinced but u just up and deny that too. It's tragic.
You also have found knobs on a 40ft long whale and have passed those off for legs linking the whales back to some kind of land-mammal. > Yes! I freakin LOVE that find so much. It's perfect and makes perfect sense. Im really excited about the post in which i discuss that and other vestigial bones and organs in humans and other animals. Yay!
ur turning this into a pissing contest. > Ofcourse I am nathan. If only the world worked the way u would like it too; just denying smth fervently proves it wrong. We can all keep hoping and trying.....OR, grow up and accept the evidence.
Whatever the heck that thing is called, it looks like a mini-Nessy.
ReplyDeleteYou'd thank him for being raised to deny facts, argue smth without any evidence and in the face of contrary, superior evidence....>> If thats what u want to call it, then yes!!!
All i did was highlight what u said>> if that were the case I wouldn't be complaining. And it was something I said a few minutes-hours ago, not days. :)
Dude, knobs on a 40ft long whale are pimples.
ur turning this into a pissing contest. > Ofcourse I am nathan. >> At least u've admitted smth