Raider5678

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100526-is-abortion-ethical/page-3 Is now a bad time to say he started it?

Twenty øne Piløts Truce Migraine House of Gold Stressed Out Can't Help Falling in Love Tear in my Heart All the time, constantly when working on large projects.

Raider. Enough said.

Yes, yes he does. You should tell the other 15 boys who've gotten hooked up.

I don't know. Worked for him, maybe I should try it lol

I over heard an odd conversation between my 2 buddies. One of them, was asking the other how he should ask a girl out. He's had a long time crush on someone, and was finally going to ask her out. Either way he decided to ask my other friend how to do so, which is a completely idiotic idea. Ironically he gave a simple piece of odd advice. "Tell her best friend your planning on asking said girl out, and if the answer is yes then said girl will start hanging around you a lot more. Then you ask her." So basically bet your dating advice on someones inability to keep a secret. Yep. Completely concrete. He's now dating her.

I relent.

Actually it does have a note that it skips generations but it was lost in translatiooff..You would know that if you didn't nod off While this is true, you would yet to disprove Adam and Eve. Comparing them to bigfoot or lochness seems like a way to just avoid it. I know it's Russels teacup but hey, still works.

Its hard to argue with you, as you think that simply dissmissing the idea is proof its fake. In the time the geaneologies were written it was common practice to skip plenty of generations. That's historical comparison. If that's how geaneologies were written in that time period, surely you can assume the same of the ones in the bible? Or do you saying it wouldn't mean its not true? The word yalad in the Hebrew language can be translated to begat. Inside the bible, begat is commonly used to signify relations, but they dont have to be direct. Inside the Hebrew language there's also a mark they would put front of the geaneologies to mean several generations were skipped. And not just one or two, but significant numbers of generations. This mark was placed many times in the genesis geaneologies. But I'm sure your going to argue that because you don't believe it eh? Because your the best Hebrew translator ever? And the "sources" you mentioned don't prove anything. They just make assumptions, using the same estimations i disproved. In what way am I ignoring your question? Please, answer! And your dismissing this because you don't want to answer? You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't the first humans. Your previous argument was that the possibility of two human beings showing up in a pair was impossible. If God made them, can you honestly say its impossible? You can't disprove God. You can't prove God. Its called russels teacup. Simply dismissing everything I say because I'm "young and inexperienced" kind of seems rude.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html This offers some information. http://www.revelation.co/2009/06/19/does-the-bible-say-earth-is-flat-or-round/

The writers of Job knew the earth was round. So did isiah. And its hinted about in Luke. Just because you say its speculative doesn't mean it is. It IS founded by historical comparisons and translators of the Hebrew language, along with several examples and proof is provided. Once again, I don't see why its extremely unlikely. Also, why is it "impossible" that Adam and Eve were the first humans? Your evolution theory doesn't really work because according to us its god. Say in the likely hood of 2 humans showing up in a pair is extremely small doesnt say anything about that.

And if you simply reread the argument, your assuming you won because you don't like the evidence memammal. That's why I'm not bothering to argue against you. Maybe I don't Accept all the facts, but then neither do you.

Annnnnnd again. They calculated the age assuming there were no gaps.

https://bible.org/seriespage/6-coming-grips-genealogies-genesis-51-32

I made that bit up? Get this straight, when we read that that's what we were taught. And I'm done with you. A quote from someone, Do not argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'll go with this. I just have a hard time when the person who accuses me of starting arguments(memammal) continues to say stuff about the religion. And should we reply then it was obviously us who started the argument.

Oh yeah. Instead we should just let you say what ever you want and sing kumbaya around a fire eh? And if we dare challenge something, then were immediately anti science freaks bent on destroying the world in the sadistic way of un education. And should we actually prove a lie you were saying, then its just something that some nutjob was saying and got lucky. All the time if we do just stand around a fire singing, then we're ignoring you because we "know" we're wrong. We do one thing wrong and you hold us up to a standard 10x higher then the normal person, and if we don't meet that standard? Then we're liars and thrives, and enjoy nothing better then to attack you. So what would you have us do? "Fight back"? Just ignore you? Nothing we do will ever be good enough. Your only goal is trying to tell people they're wrong about religion. So I have questions for you. What's your purpose in life? Is it to do what I mentioned? Is it perhaps to better the world? What's your thoughts on things above your understanding? Are they simply not real? Miracles that are impossible to dismiss, what do you say about them? If you find religion so painfully obviously wrong, why do you bother to tell people about it? What is it that you'll never be content until you've done so? Were you there 2 million years ago, that you can so accurately without a shadow of a dout, tell me exactly what was happening? Are there no holes in your theory of evolution? Is it a perfect theory that you wouldn't ever imagine that there could be imperfections in it? Were you the brilliant mind who advances science? Or are you the mind that uses it to simply prove your smarter and better then everyone else? There's holes in science, and there's holes in religion. You'll just have to accept that. I gave you my counter argument. Your basing me being wrong on the findings of someone I proved in accurate. 6000 years is false, accept that. There's proof if you would just open your eyes. Look at my post and any fool can see that I presented an argument that you choose to ignore.

In what way can I prove anything to you? And why, can it only buy me a few thousand years? There's a difference, one is listing hero's and goddly people, and their descendents, while most of the bible isn't.And, if the bible is really so complicated to understand, that your mind can't possibly understand so much as the simplest this in it, why are you even bothering tying to prove it wrong?

I already explained why the biblical calculations can't be done. Just because its easily dismissed doesn't mean I have to make it complicated.Yes, he wouldn't do it modern time, but not because it would be really bad in his standards, but because at that time it was war, now its no longer a war, its trying to convert people.

I don't believe its referring to the law of Leviticus, unless I'm confused. I thinks its referring to the law of God. No sinners will enter heaven without coming to accept Jesus type of thing.

If you have read Matthew, you would find that it is very clearly against putting people to death, because things have changed since the earlier history.And the earlier history is where the calendar failed. The "unbroken male lineage" is actually broken and could stretch a massive span of time. If you read my post you would know that this is why 6000 years isn't correct. And genocide of entire towns, cities, and populations was very common during those times. A rebellion in those days was a lot harder to stop then modern day, in case you didn't notice that. For the same reason we don't sacrifice animals these days, we dont execute people any more. I gtg.

Actually that was aimed slightly more at memammal then you, my bad. I've been gone for the past few weeks, so I really hope you haven't engaged much with me during those weeks lol.

True, you answered my question, but it also proved my point I was trying to make with memammal. And a large number of atheists say there was no flood. Then the link you provide says god killed 20,000,000 people in one. Wait, what makes you think I'm confusing you with someone? Just wondering....

I've currently been learning about the big bang theory. First they claim half the stories in the bible are made up, then they claim Gods a murderer. Your lack of knowledge of the bible is getting annoying, read about all the people God has saved. And if you had ever even once read the new testament, you would learn extremely quickly that you should put people to death anymore, and rather, tell them they did wrong, hope they don't do it again, and let them go. You can't honestly tell me every little thing in the bible is more then all the kings and queens of the entire earth killing for stupid reasons? According to most atheist, there was no big flood, so can you really count when you can pick and choose? So, was there a big flood or not? If you take that away, 80% of the deaths that the one article lists is wiped away. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/hitler-was-a-christian/ Because its sooooo obvious this link isn't biased. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/about/ And that no false info is in this. http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/god-is-impossible/ And that he proved something that cannot be proven..... Wonderful. No science in this BTW. Mostly personal opinion. Read on. Having read quite a bit, I find this dude is taking almost everything out of context. The bible says Pink unicorns are real!!!! The bible actually says, there is no way pink unicorns are real. BTW, bible never talks about pink unicorns in my knowledge, this is an example. Also, multiple times he outright lies about stuff. To give an example, he says god told someone to sacrifice his daughter. In reality, the guy said he would sacrifice the first living thing he saw when he returned home. Also, there's a lot of controversy over the meaning of sacrifice there.