Conquer Club

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:53 am**

WL_southerner wrote:omg a polar bear with wings i hope not hate to be under neath when it decides to do some droppings (crap)

now that the ice sheets are so far apart, they actually need wings since they are drowning before they can find more ice to climb onto

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:53 am**

WL_southerner wrote:omg a polar bear with wings i hope not hate to be under neath when it decides to do some droppings (crap)

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:01 am**

jay_a2j wrote:
AlgyTaylor wrote:Jay ... I respect your right to have an opinion. But you seem to take the bible as the literal truth with no errors. This is a really stupid position to take.

For example
2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death"
2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Submitted anonymously:

(2 Samuel)If you continue in 2 Sam 21:8 it says that Michal raised those kids for another woman.

(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:08 am**

WL_southerner wrote:jay a question for you how long do you think man been living on the earth for

From Adam to present day around 6,000 years. The Earth's age? No idea. Don't know if the 5 days prior to the creation of man were literal 24 hour days or "a day to God is like a thousand years".

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:11 am**

And the house of cards begins to fall...

Courtesy of Discovery: Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found

"The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah."

"As Academy Award-winner Cameron said in a press release, "It doesn't get bigger than this. We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:18 am**

jay_a2j wrote:
(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

Then why wasn't it translated better? Is this just your opinion? I would suggest that the two words are virtually synonymous anyway. Are you hinging the entire bible's non-contradiction on a single 'this word should have been different'?

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:20 am**

maniacmath17 wrote:I can see how height may be affected by diet changes and other similar factors, but feet size? Seems like if your feet are too small to hold your weight, that could get in the way of breeding.

The only way I could see the change taking place would be those with larger feet were having more success in producing offspring than those with smaller feet since the smaller footed people would be too busy struggling to stay upright on their tiny feet.

Okay, first of all, I totally could have sworn that you'd written something different previously! Is there a way to change a post without that ugly little edit warning at the bottom?

Now, I can understand your line of thinking, in that our specialized and proportional feet are necessary to support bipedal movement. A careful balance definately would be necessary for a person to function in everyday life. I think, though, that you would be very hard pressed to find a single individual in the past century who, barring any particular defect, was unable to breed due to inadequacies in the size of her feet, let alone a significant enough of a portion of the population to affect the overall gene pool.

I think you're misunderstanding the implications of the height study. The study does not suggest that from one generation to the next a population inexplicable increased its average height while maintaining all other bodily dimentions. It states, rather, that due to a change towards a more healthy diet, several individuals in several observed populations have demonstrated increased rate of bone growth which has lead to the populations' overall generational height increase. This boost to bone development rates effects the subjects' entire bodies, giving them an advantage across every dimention, feet included. Height was just the easiest recordable, and most obvious notable change in the population; it certainly wasn't the only one.

If you really want to examine the underlying mechanics of the change that took place, consider that every member of the population in question's development is influenced by his or her genetic makeup. In the older, dwarfed generation, there existed all of the necessary genetic instruction for a normal-sized, well-adapted human being; this generation never realized its genetic potential, however, due to deficiencies in diet. The next generation, which shared the same gene pool as the previous, did have its dietary needs met, and, as such, grew much taller, thanks to an abundance of the necessary elements in their diet to facilitate bone growth. It's the same gene pool, both producing perfectly functional, non-top-heavy human beings. One generation just experienced an increase in their overall growth and development. In each case, the size of the feet was probably in similar proportion to the body, since both generations' feet and height development were dictated by the same gene pool.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:26 am**

ok jay so we taking about 3000bc man has been here alot longer jay the first man neanthal man was in europe just after the second from last ice age,homo sapiens was in europe just after the last ice age
the avebury rings date back to 2500 bc, there are buryals and peat bog mummys that date back alot more

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:48 am**

jay_a2j wrote: (2 Samuel)If you continue in 2 Sam 21:8 it says that Michal raised those kids for another woman.

No it doesn't.

8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite

jay_a2j wrote:(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

but ...

jay_a2j wrote:I do not believe the Bible contains errors. (Another "God would have prevented it" kind of thing).

Why didn't God prevent the poor translation, then?

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:01 pm**

Jay...i really respect your dedication and faith....its an honorable and respectable thing...you are possibly a better person than anyone in here

the only reason ive posted here is because you use the word logical in your title, and your arguments are anything but

why you seem to fear the discovery of the world created by God through scientific research is beyond me....

you have the benefit of believing in an omnipotent, omiscient God, who can make anything possible, including a world that started as a big bang...took many billion years to develop....included the earth and its evolutionary process, and included the intricate system of life and DNA as we know it, but still has complete control over it, and oversees its process every day....you could even argue that when the bible talks of creating man...it refers to creating man's soul....there are many examples of the writings of the Bible that are translated looser than this

He could have created this entire universe for us...given us all the tools we need to figure out the rest of it...allowed us to evolve from singled cell animals over eons...and then when he decided the time was right, imparted our souls upon us, and took us under his wing....for us it seems to have taken a lot of time...but for God it would be the same as an instant, if he so chose

And really, there is no way to argue this is impossible...Some may choose not to believe, and others will but at least its a logical argument. There is no way to disprove it, and there never will be. There is no way to disprove that an all powerful being cant create any kind of universe, or multiple universes, or anything...and choose to make it impossible to prove or disprove.

but instead you seem to reject scientific research that is beyond plausible, and is more than probable, and focus on arguments and points that are so basically flawed, and simplified, that one cant help but not consider them illogical

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:27 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:
WL_southerner wrote:jay a question for you how long do you think man been living on the earth for

From Adam to present day around 6,000 years. The Earth's age? No idea. Don't know if the 5 days prior to the creation of man were literal 24 hour days or "a day to God is like a thousand years".

What about the myriad fossil evidence of humans from thousands of years before this? Omo I and Omo II, found in Etheopia, have been proven to be at least 130,000 years old (and recent reseaerch suggests 190,000, i believe)...

There are thousands and thousands of cases of fossil evidence of homo sapiens dated as earlier than 4000BC, let alone archaeological evidence in the form of settlements, circular ditches, burial mounds etc. etc. There are neolithic villages all over egypt dated to around 6000BC.

Is all this a lie? Who lived in these towns and villages?

I can understand a disbelief in evolution much more than I can understand man being around for only 6000 years...

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:10 pm**

How do you explain Jesus' son, Judah? We found out about it earlier today.

heavycola wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
(James1:13) The Hebrew word that the KJV translated as tempted is better translated as tested.

Then why wasn't it translated better? Is this just your opinion? I would suggest that the two words are virtually synonymous anyway. Are you hinging the entire bible's non-contradiction on a single 'this word should have been different'?

The word for 'virgin' and 'woman' in hebrew (or whatever it was originally written in) were very similiar, if not the same. Not uncommon - the word for 'raisin' and 'virgin' in ancient arabic was the same.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:13 pm**

Shaninon wrote:If you really want to examine the underlying mechanics of the change that took place, consider that every member of the population in question's development is influenced by his or her genetic makeup. In the older, dwarfed generation, there existed all of the necessary genetic instruction for a normal-sized, well-adapted human being; this generation never realized its genetic potential, however, due to deficiencies in diet. The next generation, which shared the same gene pool as the previous, did have its dietary needs met, and, as such, grew much taller, thanks to an abundance of the necessary elements in their diet to facilitate bone growth. It's the same gene pool, both producing perfectly functional, non-top-heavy human beings. One generation just experienced an increase in their overall growth and development. In each case, the size of the feet was probably in similar proportion to the body, since both generations' feet and height development were dictated by the same gene pool.

Diet has a huge influence on evolutionary paths - the Norse, around the time of Jesus's birth, developed the necessary gene expression to allow them to become lactose tolerant as long as they live. Before, you lost the ability to develop lactase after you stopped drinking breast milk. Now we can drink milk for as long as we like.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:43 pm**

unriggable wrote:Not uncommon - the word for 'raisin' and 'virgin' in ancient arabic was the same.

Wait...so it was the Raisin Mary...not the Virgin Mary?

Was she kinda dried up and wrinkly from too much time in the sun?
And we wonder how JC turned water into wine...he was pokin' around the vineyard!
No wonder it was a virgin birth...she was seedless.

<BADDA Boom!> Thank You, GOOD NIGHT! :lol:

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:04 pm**

Backglass wrote:
unriggable wrote:Not uncommon - the word for 'raisin' and 'virgin' in ancient arabic was the same.

Wait...so it was the Raisin Mary...not the Virgin Mary?
Was she kinda dried up and wrinkly from too much time in the sun?
And we wonder how JC turned water into wine...he was pokin' around the vineyard!
No wonder it was a virgin birth...she was seedless.
<BADDA Boom!> Thank You, GOOD NIGHT!

If you die for allah you will be met in heaven by seventy virgins. It was something very ridiculous though, like raisins that never go out or something like that.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:14 pm**

unriggable wrote:If you die for allah you will be met in heaven by seventy virgins.

No no no...Seventy Raisins. Therein lies the flaw. :lol:

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:20 pm**

...nice.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:37 pm**

totally

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:11 pm**

AAFitz wrote:Jay...i really respect your dedication and faith....its an honorable and respectable thing...you are possibly a better person than anyone in here

the only reason ive posted here is because you use the word logical in your title, and your arguments are anything but

why you seem to fear the discovery of the world created by God through scientific research is beyond me....

you have the benefit of believing in an omnipotent, omiscient God, who can make anything possible, including a world that started as a big bang...took many billion years to develop....included the earth and its evolutionary process, and included the intricate system of life and DNA as we know it, but still has complete control over it, and oversees its process every day....you could even argue that when the bible talks of creating man...it refers to creating man's soul....there are many examples of the writings of the Bible that are translated looser than this

He could have created this entire universe for us...given us all the tools we need to figure out the rest of it...allowed us to evolve from singled cell animals over eons...and then when he decided the time was right, imparted our souls upon us, and took us under his wing....for us it seems to have taken a lot of time...but for God it would be the same as an instant, if he so chose

And really, there is no way to argue this is impossible...Some may choose not to believe, and others will but at least its a logical argument. There is no way to disprove it, and there never will be. There is no way to disprove that an all powerful being cant create any kind of universe, or multiple universes, or anything...and choose to make it impossible to prove or disprove.

but instead you seem to reject scientific research that is beyond plausible, and is more than probable, and focus on arguments and points that are so basically flawed, and simplified, that one cant help but not consider them illogical

I'm not better then anyone here or anywhere for that matter. I don't think Science is bunk. I have a problem when Science tries to explain away our surroundings leaving God out of the equation. God gives man intelligence, then man turns around and uses that intelligence to try to disprove God. And you are right... some will chose to believe and others will not. Yet logic dictates there is a God. :wink:

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:15 pm**

jay_a2j wrote:I'm not better then anyone here or anywhere for that matter. I don't think Science is bunk. I have a problem when Science tries to explain away our surroundings leaving God out of the equation. God gives man intelligence, then man turns around and uses that intelligence to try to disprove God. And you are right... some will chose to believe and others will not. Yet logic dictates there is a God.

Well, if God gave us the tools to disprove Him, aren't we supposed to use these tools? I mean, what would be the purpose of creating something that man wasn't supposed to use?

Plus, science isn't supposed to put God into the equation, that's what Religion is for.

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:22 pm**

Guiscard wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
WL_southerner wrote:jay a question for you how long do you think man been living on the earth for

From Adam to present day around 6,000 years. The Earth's age? No idea. Don't know if the 5 days prior to the creation of man were literal 24 hour days or "a day to God is like a thousand years".

What about the myriad fossil evidence of humans from thousands of years before this? Omo I and Omo II, found in Etheopia, have been proven to be at least 130,000 years old (and recent reseaerch suggests 190,000, i believe)...

There are thousands and thousands of cases of fossil evidence of homo sapiens dated as earlier than 4000BC, let alone archaeological evidence in the form of settlements, circular ditches, burial mounds etc. etc. There are neolithic villages all over egypt dated to around 6000BC.

Is all this a lie? Who lived in these towns and villages?

I can understand a disbelief in evolution much more than I can understand man being around for only 6000 years...

Jay I'd welcome a rebuttal of my statements quoted above...

Posted: **Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:35 pm**

Guiscard wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
WL_southerner wrote:jay a question for you how long do you think man been living on the earth for

From Adam to present day around 6,000 years. The Earth's age? No idea. Don't know if the 5 days prior to the creation of man were literal 24 hour days or "a day to God is like a thousand years".

What about the myriad fossil evidence of humans from thousands of years before this? Omo I and Omo II, found in Etheopia, have been proven to be at least 130,000 years old (and recent reseaerch suggests 190,000, i believe)...

There are thousands and thousands of cases of fossil evidence of homo sapiens dated as earlier than 4000BC, let alone archaeological evidence in the form of settlements, circular ditches, burial mounds etc. etc. There are neolithic villages all over egypt dated to around 6000BC.

Is all this a lie? Who lived in these towns and villages?

I can understand a disbelief in evolution much more than I can understand man being around for only 6000 years...

Jay I'd welcome a rebuttal of my statements quoted above...

No rebuttal needed...you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:38 am**

Mm...150 pages. And all pleasant reading thus far.

--Andy

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:55 am**

jay_a2j wrote:No rebuttal needed...you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe.

Thats the point, though. I don't believe it, it is proven fact. I've seen it with my own eyes and, in a couple of cases, witnessed the tests to prove how old things are.

How is this wrong? Are all the skeletons and settlements fake? I'll repeat that there are thousands of verifiable and mythologically sound cases where human life pre-4000BC has been proven outright. If I told you I believed that if I click my fingers the sun will stop shining you could prove I was wrong, and I'd expect you to. I'm proving you wrong and I want to know what your answer is.

Posted: **Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:01 am**

how's the polar bears, flying fish theory's coming along?...

Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Re: umm

Re: umm

Re: umm

umm

Re: umm

Re: umm

Re: umm

Re: umm

still waiting on jay's thoughts about his last avatar?