Post Any Evidence For God Here

[mgconstruction]

<peeking in> Anyone find anything yet?

[BigBallinStalin]

Fitz,

If humans portrayed dinosaurs in artwork across earth hundreds and hundreds of years ago, what did they look at to do it?

Fitz,

Did humans portray actual dinosaurs in artwork across earth hundreds and hundreds of years ago? If humans did, what did they look at to do it?

Stay calm, people!

[MatYahu]

Frigidus,

Lionz didn't put up just a picture of a lizard monster but many of the images he posted depict dinosaurs like the stegosaurus, and the Triceratops. It can be wondered how these ancient peoples had such knowledge of how these various dinosaurs might of looked. My point is the pics are not "just lizard monsters" but recognizable dinosaurs. These pictures do at the very least provide a logical premise that could help us draw the conclusion of whether or not man and dinosaurs have walked the earth together. Its not illogical to believe that ancient depictions of identifiable dinosaurs (and not just monsters) can be used as evidence for the theory at hand.

[Frigidus]

Frigidus,

Lionz didn't put up just a picture of a lizard monster but many of the images he posted depict dinosaurs like the stegosaurus, and the Triceratops. It can be wondered how these ancient peoples had such knowledge of how these various dinosaurs might of looked. My point is the pics are not "just lizard monsters" but recognizable dinosaurs. These pictures do at the very least provide a logical premise that could help us draw the conclusion of whether or not man and dinosaurs have walked the earth together. Its not illogical to believe that ancient depictions of identifiable dinosaurs (and not just monsters) can be used as evidence for the theory at hand.

Before I start going into this, I would just like to point out to those with a firm grip on reality that it is incredibly silly that we are arguing whether humans and dinosaurs lived in the same time period. Seriously, what is up with some people? OK.

Let's pretend for a moment that we genuinely have no way of measuring what time periods an animal lives in, that there aren't obscene amounts of evidence supporting evolution and a universe that has existed for billions of years. Let's pretend that a flood covering the planet wouldn't wipe out all of the fresh water fish along with all of the fresh water. Let's pretend that you can keep every single species of animal in the world alive on a 300x50x30 cubit boat for a month. Let's pretend that Lionz and Friends arrived at the conclusion by looking at the evidence and reaching a conclusion that just happened to line up with the Bible and they all said "whoa, that's crazy, maybe the Bible has some merit to it" instead of spending an absolutely outrageous amount of time gathering together faulty evidence and conjecture to support their religious book of choice. I can put that all aside for now. Let's just talk dinosaurs.

Are we seriously going to argue that dinosaurs existed during a time period when humans had enough free time to make pottery and sculptures based on these dinosaurs, a period that by definition only exists when civilization has taken root, and there is no written record whatsoever discussing giant lizards, some of which would likely take an interest in eating people? None?! No mention of them all suddenly going away? This isn't some small issue. There would be more than a handful of dinosaur sculptures. Also, where were these sculptures unearthed? What civilization did they belong to? Surely they aroused a little interest among the scholarly community? Source or it didn't happen.

[Lionz]

Dinosaurs were written about hundreds of years ago and you missed stuff towards top of page 31 maybe. Do you want to learn more about a particular image? Various species including species of fish have arisen since the flood perhaps.

[MeDeFe]

Dinosaurs were written about hundreds of years ago and you missed stuff towards top of page 31 maybe. Do you want to learn more about a particular image?

It isn't as if fossils only began popping up in the last 200 years or so. They've been coming to the surface practically since ever. There's already been some short discussion regarding fossils and tales of dragons. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 8&t=108871 So... sorry, but a few pictures on some urns aren't evidence of very much. Not of god and not of a young earth.

[Lionz]

Do you theorize that humans found dinosaur bones hundreds of years ago and used them to portray dinosaurs in artwork?

95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates--clams, etc.
4.75% of all fossils are algae and plant fossils
0.2375% includes insects and other invertebrates
0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mainly fish. 95% of land vertebrate fossils consist of one bone fragment or tooth. For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found as of 1994.

I've come across one or more format related issue and that's a misquote that should contain more for all I know maybe. Source here you can compare with perhaps...
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/d ... lMan1.html

[natty dread]

95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates--clams, etc.
4.75% of all fossils are algae and plant fossils
0.2375% includes insects and other invertebrates
0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mainly fish. 95% of land vertebrate fossils consist of one bone fragment or tooth. For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found as of 1994.
Dr. Morris points out that evolutionists say man has been on earth for one million years. Our present population growth is 2% per year. Starting with one man and woman, it would take only 1100 years to get 6 billion living humans, but if we have been around for one million years, the number of humans would have been 108600. [Morris, p. 70] That number is greater than the number of particles in the universe which is about 1080, according to Sir Arthur Eddington, a British astrophysicist. Of course, 108600 is a ridiculous example of uniformitarianism in this situation, but it does point out some difficulties for long ages.

The catch here being that population growth has not always been the same... duh. In the old days, diseases killed much more of human offspring. Thus you cannot compare the population growth of today with population growth thousands of years ago.

[jonesthecurl]

Dinosaurs were written about hundreds of years ago and you missed stuff towards top of page 31 maybe. Do you want to learn more about a particular image? Various species including species of fish have arisen since the flood perhaps.

What, by evolution?

[Lionz]

Natty,

You replied and I've edited since maybe... maybe there's a sentence you missed reading that says a ridiculous example of uniformitarianism and you're replying to a part that's secondhand in one or more sense regardless. By the way, that's a misquote that's missing one or more thing and that contains numbers that should be raised up and smaller maybe.

Jones,

Depending on definition at least maybe. There were certain kinds of creatures created and they bring forth variety after their kinds perhaps.

[jonesthecurl]

So let me get this right, there's been evolution since the Flood?

[Frigidus]

So let me get this right, there's been evolution since the Flood?

Not just that, but super fast evolution. You can't really fit all of the organisms that couldn't survive a planet covering flood into one boat, so we must assume that they cropped up in the few thousand years since.

[Lionz]

Have I claimed in here that things did not evolve before or after a flood? Horses and zebras share common ancestry and can naturally bring forth offspring maybe, but what suggests to you that wolves and roses share a common ancestor?

[jonesthecurl]

How many times are you going to ask that question?

[Lionz]

You refer to a question you want to answer?

[pimpdave]

http://www.wolfrose.com/

[Army of GOD]

I usually ask http://www.wolframalpha.com for answers.

[Neoteny]

Neo,

You just said this on page 30 maybe...


There has always been external usable energy added to earth.

I said this:

Neo,

Did entropy decrease on earth without external usable energy added to earth?

No. There has always been external usable energy added to earth.

The sun is the external usable energy that has always been added to earth. It hasn't always been used, but its always been there (for as long as the earth has been there). I was talking about the sun.

Where did external usable energy come to earth from when there was nothing on earth that could harness energy from sunlight? If there was a time like that?

Most, if not all, of the external usable energy came from the sun.

If you were to check out five Shakespeare books from a library and the word gentlewoman showed up in each over twenty times, would that suggest to you that they evolved from eachother?

No, because Shakespeare works do not reproduce. There is a continuous lineage of genes, so we can expect that they would be passed down through the ages.

If genetics can be used to argue for common ancestry or common design, what really suggests wolves and roses have common ancestry?

Phylogenetic analysis of homologous genes links up all living creatures to a universal ancestor. I won't give you an exact list of the genes that go all the way back. But we do find that wolves share certain genes; wolves and cats share fewer genes; wolves and cats share fewer genes with snakes; wolves, cats, and snakes share fewer genes with starfish; wolves, cats, snakes, and starfish share fewer genes with roses. Similarly, roses share fewer genes with apples; roses and apples share fewer genes with pines; etc. etc. This suggests common ancestry. Additionally, you share genes with your father. You share fewer genes with your grandfather. You share fewer genes with your great-grandfather (not the best metaphor, but a simple one).

How would a lack of an intelligence make putting something together more simple if it would and would somehow?

Do you not think intelligence is more complex than no intelligence. Are our brains not more complex than a snail's? The existence of intelligence makes creation extremely complex.

When has a rabbit fossil been dated with a radiometric dating technique?

I dunno. The fossil rabbit bit was actually a famous saying. That's the main reason I brought it up. There have not been any rabbits in the precambrian to date.

Where does that site or whatever mention a dead tree being dated to over 5,000 years? People might have tried to link trees together by trying to find patterns in rings, but consider this maybe...

Tree-ring studies have been a staple of anthropological investigation in the American Southwest[2] since the early decades of this century and in Europe since World War II. The bristlecone pine chronology of the American Southwest now exceeds 8500 years with the possibility that up to 3000 floating years will be added in the reasonably near future. The European oak and pine chronology, a composite of work done in Germany and Northern Ireland, is now over 11,000 years long.

We have about 6000 years of chronologies spread out over the last 9500 years in a region bounded by the Turkish-Georgian frontier in the east, the mountains of North Lebanon in the south, including all of Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, parts of Bulgaria and (the former) Yugoslavia, and extending to the instep of the Italian boot at Mt. Pollino in Calabria.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... econe-pine

That wasn't particularly convincing. Considering the source, I'd say the author actually did a pretty good job. He essentially conceded that dendrochronology is very difficult to argue against from a scientific perspective. Did you get a different feeling from that?

Is there a single tree anywhere, dead or alive, that has been dated over 5,000 years with tree ring dating? If trees have been growing on earth for hundreds of millions of years, then what's up?

The quotes I posted above discuss trees that lived over 5000 years ago that were dated via tree ring counting.

Do you theorize that humans found dinosaur bones hundreds of years ago and used them to portray dinosaurs in artwork?

I don't particularly know much about the details, but it's a hypothesis I've heard before, and I don't doubt the possibility of it's veracity. I do know that artistic depictions of dragons do not match up with dinosaur anatomy very accurately. It's a very superficial resemblance.

95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates--clams, etc.
4.75% of all fossils are algae and plant fossils
0.2375% includes insects and other invertebrates
0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mainly fish. 95% of land vertebrate fossils consist of one bone fragment or tooth. For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found as of 1994.
Dr. Morris points out that evolutionists say man has been on earth for one million years. Our present population growth is 2% per year. Starting with one man and woman, it would take only 1100 years to get 6 billion living humans, but if we have been around for one million years, the number of humans would have been 108600. [Morris, p. 70] That number is greater than the number of particles in the universe which is about 1080, according to Sir Arthur Eddington, a British astrophysicist. Of course, 108600 is a ridiculous example of uniformitarianism in this situation, but it does point out some difficulties for long ages.

I've come across one or more format related issue and that's a misquote that should contain more for all I know maybe. Source here you can compare with perhaps...
http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/d ... lMan1.html

Citing sources is always a positive thing. I don't think applying our current population growth to past population growth is an accurate depiction of history. For example, do you think human population growth was the same during the years the plague ravaged Europe? Would it be accurate to say that our population growth with our advanced medical knowledge and technology will compare to that of ancient Egyptians'? I think the simple answer is "no." I'm not able to do the math, but that seems like a fatal flaw in the author's math. Birth and death rates are hardly constant.

If someone comes across a root system that conflicts with a theory of theirs having to do with climatic conditions in the past, should they twist what they see to fit the theory? Is that not what happened with Pando? What if He can cause plants to grow in any climate? What if the flood is not make believe and He directly caused thousands of aspens to grow out west right after it?

Well, if a creator is deliberately messing with such events, he's making it very difficult to discover his truth, is he not?

What would I use a water canopy theory for in regards to explaining a helium-4 level? There's a level of helium-4 on earth that backs me up perhaps.

I don't know, and I don't know that it's worth going back over. We'll chalk this one up to a miscommunication somewhere.

I said non-organic earth meaning earth that was not organic maybe... maybe not sure if I was meaning earth free from things that have been alive or carbon-free earth or both or neither, but what's been used to date earth itself and not a fossil?

The same methods to date fossils can be used to date rocks. Instead of going back to the death of the animal, radiometric dating will go back to when the rock formed. Igneous rocks are particularly useful for this.

I was able to go to the pdf file or whatever without breaking out a credit card to do so perhaps. There might not actually be a source reference for 10,000 cubic miles there, but I don't guess someone made up 10,000 without there apparently being thousands of cubic miles of sediment perhaps. You refer to a quote by me that I have never trusted maybe.... maybe whether or not I even trust myself comes down to definition.

It's right here.

The Colorado River delta itself is quite extensive. It covers 3325 square miles
(8612 square kilometers) (Sykes, 1937), and is up to 3.5 miles (5.6 km) deep (Jenning
and Thompson, 1986), containing over 10,000 cubic miles of the Colorado River's
sediments from the last 2 to 3 million years. The sediments that were deposited by the
river more than 2 to 3 million years ago have been shifted northwestward by
movement along the San Andreas and related faults. (Winker & Kidwell, 1986)

It's good to always be skeptical, though, even of yourself. Plenty of scientists have fallen prey to thinking they are being objective when they really aren't. It just means that we all have to be careful and try to help each other out.

What would rising land rationally explain in regards to the grand canyon? Is the Kiabab Uplift not about 10,000 feet above sea level and does the Colorado River not enter the Grand Canyon at about 6,000 feet above sea level?

If the Kiabab Uplift started at 6000 feet when the Colorado starting cutting through it, and was then pushed up by geological activity, it could be raised up to look like it flowed uphill.

I have been suggesting that single floods can lay down multiple sedimentary layers perhaps. I'm not claiming that a non-global flood can't lead to there being polystrate fossils, but I'm also not claiming that it has ever taken thousands of years for a foot of sedimentary layers to form. Do you theorize that it has? Has a single flood layed down over a dozen sedimentary layers meters apart? If so, what can sedimentary layers really tell us about how old anything is?

I would say that in some areas, 1 cm/1000 years would be accurate. But it's not applicable to every local area. Well, sedimentary layers can always give us a relative date (top layers are younger), but the flood layering also looks a certain way, so we can often tell what layers were deposited by floods, and what layers were deposited by other phenomenon.

Fountains broke open in certain places and we should not expect to find a single identical layer of sediment across the earth by any means perhaps.

I disagree with you on this point. If you filled a bathtub with water from three spigots and then let dirt settle on the bottom, it would still settle in a certain form. This would change as it drained, sure, but it would still leave a very specific patter all over the bathtub.

Does that Geology page or whatever actually say that a single fossil is running through multiple layers of strata?

Yes. In geology texts, the term used is "upright fossils"

I'm not claiming there was a preflood earth with no mountains, but would a cubic foot of water not theoretically be able to cover a perfect sphere larger than the earth? Earth has even expanded in size and used to be smaller maybe.

I think you may have mistyped. A cubic foot of water is a little more than a gallon or two. A cubic mile would not be sufficient either. Do you mean a foot of water all over the earth?

Did the Mt. St. Helens eruption not produce one or more meandering canyon in 1980? Whether or not in ash and not water laid sediment? Also...

That is a different type of phenomenon, but I'm not familiar with that particular example. Do you have a link I can look at? Also, how would that translate to a large flow of water?

That's derived from a slideshow thing and derived with the help of one or more copy screen and paste to Paint technique and cropping and should contain more for all I know and does not contains words of my own depending on definition at least maybe.

Geologically speaking, steep walls mean softer rock. Would that not make sense?

[daddy1gringo]

How many times do I have to tell you? There's no such thing as Evidence for Dog.

What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Somebody who stays up all night wondering if there is a dog.

Thats your best post ever strider

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?<
<
>
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Somebody who knocks on your door for no good reason.

[notyou2]

LOL

[Lionz]

Neo,

There might have been some confusion between us having to do with the word usable. Did entropy decrease on earth without energy coming to earth from an external source and being harnessed by something?

What if you and I were to create a video game with a computer program and it contained beings with artificial intelligence who could reproduce with one another? And we were to create humans and beasts known for flying and beasts known for roaming earth and beasts known for swimming waters? Now ask yourself if you think you would use English characters to make the first in the computer program and Japanese characters to make the second and Egyptian Heiroglyphics to make the third and Hebrew characters to make the fourth maybe... perhaps we should expect for there to be similarities in DNA across a wide range of animals and a lack of such would ironically be evidence for there being more than One Creator.

Do wolves collectively share certain needs for living? And do wolves and cats share fewer needs with eachother? And do wolves and cats share fewer needs with snakes than eachother? And do wolves, cats, and snakes share fewer needs with starfish than one another? And do wolves, cats, snakes, and starfish share more needs with eachother than with roses?

Also, what if He is an Artist who has streams of thought and He used and uses a creative process? And He created plants and then fish kinds after that and then a snake kind after that and then a cat kind after that and then a dog kind right after that?

There has been some confusion between us having to do with the words putting, together and intelligence possibly. You don't mean to suggest that having an intelligence would make putting together a sandwich more difficult and do mean to suggest that putting together a robot with intelligence would be more difficult than putting together a robot with no intelligence?

How many rabbit fossil specimens total have been found?

You referred to a Cornell page that does not say that a single tree has been dated to be 5,000 years anywhere on it maybe. And see a Practical Matters section? If Peter Ian Kuniholm means to suggest that a sample with fewer than 100 rings is a waste of time, then what does he feel a sample with 150 rings would be?

It has long been known that individual tree rings can be changed, during growth, from the climate-signal-dictated size to a different size as a result of some disturbance. This disturbance (for example, insect attack, earthquake, release of gas, etc.) can make the ring either smaller or larger. If these disturbances occurred at sufficient frequency, and reappeared in sequence in other trees at later times, the actually-contemporaneous trees would crossmatch in an age-staggered manner, thus creating an artificial chronology.

For illustrative purposes, imagine the simplified situation of only three trees, (A), (B), and (C), which started growing at exactly the same time, and each of which lived exactly 500 years. If nothing happened, the tree-ring series would normally crossmatch according to climatic signal, with the crossmatch point starting with the first ring each of Tree (A), Tree (B), and Tree (C). All the constituents of the 3-tree chronology would overlap completely, creating a chronology that spans exactly 500 years.

Now suppose that an external disturbance causes rings 2, 6, 9, 14, etc., in Tree (A) to grow much bigger or smaller than they otherwise would. At about this time, rings 1, 7, 10, 13, etc. are perturbed in Tree (B). 300 years after the disturbance of the growth of the rings in Tree (A), the sequence of disturbances repeats in Tree (B), affecting rings 302, 306, 309, 314, etc. (The repetition doesn’t have to be exact, because the discrepancy can be covered by inferred missing rings, which are common in the BCP chronology). 400 years after the disturbances in the early rings of Tree (B), similar disturbances occur in Tree (C), affecting rings 401, 407, 410, 413, etc. Identical reasoning can be applied to many more trees, and over a much longer period of time.

The net result is the fact that Trees (A), (B), and (C) will no longer crossmatch across their 500-year common growth history. They will now only crossmatch at their ring-perturbed ends. The result is an illusory chronology that is 1200 years long. Crossmatching experiments that I had performed show that it is only necessary to disturb 2–3 rings per decade, sustained across at least a few decades, in order to override the climatic signal, and to cause the tree-ring series to artificially crossmatch at the ring-perturbed ends.

We should step back and honestly ask ourselves if we simply see superficial resemblances to dinosaurs on page 31 maybe.

Math having to do with population growth very much can help us find difficulties having to do with theories about the past even if population growth has been a far thing from constant perhaps. Maybe there's a sentence you missed reading that says a ridiculous example of uniformitarianism and you replied to a part that's secondhand in one or more sense regardless. How did humans portray dinosaurs in artwork hundreds of years ago if humans did and did somehow?

You might want to assume He exists and assume there was an earthwide flood for a moment or more and ask yourself if you would blame Him for planting vegetation on earth immediately after the flood if it occured. What if there are human and non-human enemies of Him who have tried to make things difficult to see?

What has been used to date sedimentary rocks?

Maybe there is a Winker and Kidwell source reference for 10,000 and I said stuff wrong.

What suggests the Colorado River had a path laid out and later geological activity elevated part of it 4,000 feet? If that happened, the river would have been drastically altered in terms of direction or would have ceased to exist or both perhaps.

What we find in the Grand Canyon is more consistent with the Flood model than with the uniformitarian model. We observe the formation of Cocoino Sandstone in the top of the Grand Canyon which can linked with sandstones in New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma and Kansas. When we look closer at the interface between layers in the Grand Canyon, we see little or no erosion which evolutionists claim to be many millions of years old. The average state of erosion on the continents would erode the layers to sea level in 10 million years. So the observational data is not even matching up to the evolutionist hypothesis of age.



In a flood especially a world wide flood, one would expect to find a highly diverse rock layer. And that's indeed what we find, as sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon are found all over the world, showing very little erosion between the layers. Evolutionists have noticed the regularity and parallelism of the layers which suggests the rocks were deposited in a single uninterrupted sequence. Something a flood could do. But their assumptions on how the fossils are dated are in direct conflict of what they see in the rocks themselves. So what conclusion do you think would an evolutionist take? Pretty obvious, he or she would take the dating of the fossils assumption instead. It's the main reason why many secular scientists try to deny the flood evidence. However, their denial doesn't change observational data.

What do you refer to with other phenomenon if you said that? Is there sedimentary rock anywhere that has not been underwater?

What would you expect to find if there were violent eruptions of water underground out west and water eventually covered all of earth weeks and weeks later and then eventually drained into areas called seas and oceans?

A global flood would make a considerable and observable impression in the strata. One would expect to find a pattern consisting of buckling, bending, tilting, in the strata. Not a smooth flat layer. This would happen because of billions of tons of weight created by the flood would put an enormous amount of pressure on the earth's crust. The pressure would increase as the flood gets larger and larger, thereby creating downwards pressure, and also creating upwards and sideways pressure in non-flooded areas. When the flood regresses to post-flood levels, an imbalance of side pressure is created. Upwards pressure is also created when the massive weight created by the water flow is removed. Observational data reveals the geological model for the flood. The structure of the Pacific Ocean, Continental Divide, and Mississippi River Valley show the water had moved off the uplifting western United States, while seeing the water rushing toward the Pacific Ocean and down the east slopes of the Rockies. We also observe bent, and tilted strata in various parts of the world as the result of what the flood left behind.

Are there not technically upright fossils that do not traverse multiple layers of strata?

How thin can liquid H2O get? Would a cubic foot of it not theoretically be able to cover a perfect sphere larger than the earth? Regardless, what would happen if earth became perfectly smoothed out all of a sudden? Would there be any earth above sea level?

There's some brief stuff here that can help you understand what Mt. St. Helens has to do with water perhaps. There might be an image with a meandering canyon shown. http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthelens.html

Horseshoe Bend is cut into sediment that was the basin of a lake known as Grand Lake maybe. We might actually come to a point where a natural dam broke just downstream from it. Here's a satellite viewer address with Horseshoe Bend pointed out and with a natural dam break area shown just to the southwest perhaps...

http://www.flashearth.com/?lat=36.87944 ... =0&src=msa

You can more conveniently see it pointed out here also perhaps...



You can see some or all of Marble Canyon on a bottom left section in both perhaps. What if a natural dam was holding off a lake and it burst and Marble Canyon was carved as a result? And sediment turned into sedimentary rock centuries later and Horseshoe Bend was already well cut into the basin of the lake before that happened? Where did Marble Canyon come from if there was not a dam breach that led to it forming?



There's a Meandering Rivers section here that can help us better understand Horseshoe Bend and quite a bit more maybe...

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp17110196

You claim that geologically speaking, steep walls mean softer rock? Horseshoe Bend has steep walls and was carved out of material even softer than rock perhaps.

Note: I'm misquoting in here for all I know and I have included an image cropped from a satellite viewer page and I ended up cutting off copyright type stuff I should not have for all I know maybe.

[Baron Von PWN]

Checkmate Atheists!

[jonesthecurl]

How many times do I have to tell you? There's no such thing as Evidence for Dog.

What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Somebody who stays up all night wondering if there is a dog.

Thats your best post ever strider

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?<
<
>
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Somebody who knocks on your door for no good reason.

What do you get when you cross the Atlanic with the Titanic?

[jonesthecurl]

Nearer, My God, To Thee.

[MeDeFe]

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah's Witness with an atheist?<
<
>
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Somebody who knocks on your door for no good reason.

Genius!