How did jesus walk on water?
- Thread starter spidergoat
- Start date
I does indicate a hydrologic cataclysm which caused the vast sedimentary layers, with billions of creatures entombed there in, a "relatively short" time ago.
The fact that, at current erosion rates, all the continental mass above sea level should have eroded into the sea within 15 million years, makes the old earth uniformitarian thesis absurd, among many other reasons.
The fact that, at current erosion rates, all the continental mass above sea level should have eroded into the sea within 15 million years, makes the old earth uniformitarian thesis absurd, among many other reasons.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
Is it a Christian School you study at?
What a selective understanding of possibility.
There’s nothing more absurd than a closed mind trying to sound rational or a fundamentalist brain using scientific methodology to prove an absurdity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/age.htm
Is it a Christian School you study at?
What a selective understanding of possibility.
There’s nothing more absurd than a closed mind trying to sound rational or a fundamentalist brain using scientific methodology to prove an absurdity.
Natural selection has nothing to do with Abiogenesis.
:bugeye:
The better question you may want to ask yourself is: Why did you get the two confused? Perhaps someone wants to confuse you? Who?
Hey Satry, do the arithmetic yourself, you may need some multiplication tables though to help you.
Hey retard, why would I bother?
You’ve said nothing so far.
You’re either someone getting his kicks from pretending he’s a dimwit or you actually are one.
The good thing about minds like yours is that they are put to good use by risking and giving their lives for cheap fuel.
Thanks, moron! I appreciate your stupidity, more than you will ever know.
Please…never, ever, change.
How did Jesus walk on water?
The same way David Blain levitates.
Last edited:
That's you, isn't it John Kerry. You've got nothing better to do than call yourself "Satyr" and act like the socialist/elitist ass which you are on the internet?
I knew you were intellectually lazy, but too lazy to consult your multiplication tables, don't you have some flash cards or something?
And the oceanic trench is merely a sewage gutter?
Sewage gutter? Do the arithmetic of what's subducted annually compared to what's eroded into the sea, next question.
John....Kerry?
What are you getting at, Ice? The land gets eroded, but it also gets built up when continental plates collide, as I'm sure you're aware.
What are you getting at, Ice? The land gets eroded, but it also gets built up when continental plates collide, as I'm sure you're aware.
The relative volumes are greatly disparate.
endr34kaladzhn
Registered Member
Jesus? Walking on water?
Hmm. I'll believe that if someone can demonstrate this in real life while people are watching while neither psychotic nor under the influence of illicit drugs, then I'll believe it. BUT, until then, it was either a dilusional perception, or a psychiatric disorder called, schizophrenia. Get real.
Hmm. I'll believe that if someone can demonstrate this in real life while people are watching while neither psychotic nor under the influence of illicit drugs, then I'll believe it. BUT, until then, it was either a dilusional perception, or a psychiatric disorder called, schizophrenia. Get real.
Of course they are…You said so…so it must be so.
Thanks for opening my eyes to the truth, reta…I mean ….teacher.
There are many. Many.
One of the more prominent is the myth of Jericho. At the period that the bible claims Joshua's trumpets blew down the "walls" of Jericho, there were no fortifications. No walls. Indeed, there was barely a settlement.
It did have a wall much later, but probably to control flooding as it was very small. I could go on and on about the archaeological bullshit presented in the christian bible.
Extract:
Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators' efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.
Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.
Full article here:http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm
Repeated excavations by various expeditions at Jericho and Ai, the two cities whose conquest is described in the greatest detail in the Book of Joshua, have proved very disappointing. Despite the excavators' efforts, it emerged that in the late part of the 13th century BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age, which is the agreed period for the conquest, there were no cities in either tell, and of course no walls that could have been toppled. Naturally, explanations were offered for these anomalies. Some claimed that the walls around Jericho were washed away by rain, while others suggested that earlier walls had been used; and, as for Ai, it was claimed that the original story actually referred to the conquest of nearby Beit El and was transferred to Ai by later redactors.
Biblical scholars suggested a quarter of a century ago that the conquest stories be viewed as etiological legends and no more. But as more and more sites were uncovered and it emerged that the places in question died out or were simply abandoned at different times, the conclusion was bolstered that there is no factual basis for the biblical story about the conquest by Israelite tribes in a military campaign led by Joshua.
Full article here:http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm
Sure, and the Jericho story was thought to be fictitious until the ruins were discovered, and Jericho went down circa 1400 B.C., just like the Bible says, next.
The Jericho story *is* fictitious. When biblical mythology claims it "fell" in the mid-thirteenth century BCE, there was barely a settlement there. No wall. No sign of being 'destroyed.' It did not 'go down' as you said.
Viewing biblical mythology as a historical text is a fools errand.
I checked out the website you linked to, and it explains everything I need to know about you. You seem to believe the literal biblical account of history, and seek to prove it with pseudoscience. Everything to refute your claims has been covered on the talkorigins site. I don't blame you for doubting evolution if you think it took 5 or 10 thousand years, but the scientifically established fact is that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. That's plenty of time for some weird shit to go down. If I produced the evidence that contradicts your beliefs, you would refute it anyway, since you don't want to give up those beliefs. No rational debate is possible with you.