If Jesus Came Back Tomorrow...

And may I remind you that not everything in the Bible is meant to be taken 100% literally, and some parts are just stories. The only thing I can guarantee is that there is a God and Jesus was his son.

It’s all true, although Revelation was written in code. Proof comes on judgment day. There will be millions of whiners that day with no one to hear them.

How do you confirm history? Please go read about historians.

We know the bible is the same book passed down because the old testament was checked and rechecked against original copies using a primitive hash system as well as a word for word check. Only copies that had been checked over and over and over could be used to copy from. Similar methods were used on the new testament by monks in monasteries.

There is no evidence that the sun existed before the earth in its current form. It could have been a spread out field of burning gases that coalesced into the sun.

A 'house' can get leprosy. A house in some instances was a family that lived under one roof and could consist of grandparents, sisters, brothers, their children and other relations. In the other sense a house is a building and buildings can contain leprosy which is a disease caused by microbes that eat away the nerves that allow you to feel.

The bible does not say that livestock mate in front of a stripe stick they'll produce striped offspring. That was a specific miracle from God performed because the person acted on Gods command.

You are misunderstanding again. It says humans can't move the foundations of the earth and we can't, not even today if we used nuclear weapons.

Go to Youtube and watch lectures by esteemed Bibical Scholar Bart Erman and learn something about the "Bible"

fyi- I could kiss you right now . . . thank you for your command of the material. Far too many legit Christians have no clue why they believe what they believe.

Although you probably know this, he misunderstands because he wants to misunderstand. Even where he attempts to recall previous conversations, he intentionally misconstrues what I said, and what I meant. Perhaps it isn't intentional, and is due to spiritual blindness, but I have lost patience.

You have given me more encouragement than you know.

I wish all Christians would learn and be studied and approved for those that question.

Well the bible does say that people like that will be given "strong delusion".

2 Timothy 4:3-5

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, ***they will accumulate for themselves*** teachers in accordance with their own desires and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

-

There is no greater myth today than that of the theory of evolution, esp given that it has been de facto disproven for some time now by the very scientists trying to prove it.

No just an honest one.

Actually its not the foundation of anything. If you were to remove evolution from every mention of every book teaching biology, not a single part of the remaining biology would be touched. Organs would still work the way they do, creatures would still be classified the way they are.

The mitochondrial study I linked you several times destroys the last 200,000 years of evolution hands down. Not to mention gene and protein networks. The science literally says evolution couldn't have happened.

What you consider 'earliest' copies were from the group that was in Egypt that altered the books because they wanted to take out any mention of Jesus's divinity. This is the same copy that the Vatican uses in all its bible versions. When you go with the majority text (where most of the biblical lines agree) you find that its accurate. You should study up on it. Also don't lump everyone in the same camp. The Christian biblical field is vast.

"There is a lot of evidence that the sun existed before the earth. First, if the sun didn't exist, then what was the earth orbiting? Second, scientists are able to determine that the sun is much older than the earth, which means it existed before the earth. Also, all of the evidence points to the theory that planets form from matter orbiting a star like our sun, which means the star had to exist first and the planets formed around that star later."

The earth could have orbited the gas cloud that I mentioned or maybe it didn't orbit anything until the sun came into existence. You have your science backwards. The science says that they all formed about the same time through gravitational pull. This is why they orbit at all instead of flying directly at the sun.

"No it can't. Inanimate objects can't get infected with diseases."
The bible doesn't say it was infected. Read it again.

"That's literally what the Bible says in that story. Where does the story say that it was a miracle from God? And why would god perform a miracle which allowed somebody to cheat his uncle out of livestock?"

Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Just a quick reading shows you don't know what you are talking about. The rods didn't make them come out speckled and striped. He put the rods out when he wanted them to breed and he did that when they were the ones he was going to receive.

"Numerous verses say that the Earth has pillars and foundations and cannot be moved. The Bible is wrong."

The earth has pillars and foundations. It has a layer of rock that is the "foundation" for everything above it and vast pillars under.

You work tirelessly to convince yourself of the absence of God, for someone who does not believe in Him.

Quantum physics requires a God. Science says there is a God.

Have you seen this yet?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIcjJGM6Gms

Just watched it. Very interesting.

Obviously, it was a part of a longer interview, and I sometimes struggle with Metaxas' approach to apologetics, but I plan on reading it.

If you haven't seen Dr. James Tour yet, this guy is flat out awesome. He put out some odd stuff about Covid vaccines, but he is entitled to his opinion.

Science does prove God's existence, which only makes sense given that this is His universe!

https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

Well, actually, it does. If you understood quantum physics, you'd know that observation has effects, and that things basically exist because they are observed. Therefore, if something doesn't have an observer, it can't be determined, and may not exist. But we know, logically, that it does exist, so, the argument is that God is the observer that allows everything to exist.

It's kinda a nice thought, but I sure as heck don't buy into that part of quantum physics.... not to say it's entirely impossible.

But again, if you actually understood quantum theory, you would have at least known that argument, even if you didn't agree with it.

Ooooo- you missed the part where I explained that you are beneath an actual response.

you obviously didn't read the whole thing then, because the 40 years wandering was a punishment, not because they were trying to get anywhere. But what do I know? You've definitely read it more than me.

Actually when you line up Egyptian history with the history of the surrounding countries there is a group of middle eastern people that come and live in Egypt and then later there are poems in Egypt about how the slaves left with their gold. There's a documentary that goes over the history. Its all very clear.

You're lying again, and badly.

Coming from you that means I'm telling the truth greatly. Seriously though, look it up.

Your claim, post it.

Really the only books that should be taken literally are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and some of the letters.

"Really the only books that should be taken literally are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, and some of the letters."

Unfortunately, that is untrue, given how Jesus, and the apostles, spoke regarding the Old Testament. If what you are saying is true, then none of it is trustworthy, and you are dead in your sins.

There were never any persons Matthew Mark Luke or John. They simply used those names as fillers since there is no way to know who actually wrote that crap

And is crap full of contradictions. BIG Contradictions that shred the entire "Story" of someone called "Jesus"

Funny how Jewish people don't believe Jesus is god and niether do Muslims. They have more in common with each other than jews and Christians

What the hell?!

Not everything in the Old Testament may be literal but Jesus is the Son of God. There there are no contradictions that I have seen, at least in the majority of the New Testament.

Hahaha LMAO perhaps you should look at their beliefs on right and wrong. And on how to treat others.

Oopsies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWm0O93unDY

p.s.

How do you know that Herod died in 4 BC, or that Quirinius' census took place in 6 or 7 AD? What is your source, and how do you know that it is not either inaccurate, or falsified?

A: You don't know. While I suspect that the idea that Bock provides in the video is just as likely, you weren't there. It is interesting how selective you are with what you will accept by faith, and what you will not.

p.p.s. You have never provided a solution for this: https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

Until you solve origin of life, your beliefs are nothing but blind faith. And here you thought that by being an atheist your were rejecting faith.

Article: http://cojs.org/bar_kokhba_coins_from_masada-_132-135_ce/

"If you're asking how I can know for absolutely sure that those things are true, then I can't, and neither can anybody else. But if historians have a high degree of confidence that they are true, then I am willing to accept them as true for the time being."

Actually they can and do. Historical documentation and from various sources and different countries, chiseled in stone, physical remains, etc, are slightly different from tall tales of a man who had a conversation with a burning bush after he had lead his people away from a land presided over by Gods with falcon and crocodile heads or for even dandier, farther east, a blue skinned God with an elephant head or feathered flying Serpent Gods in Mexico.

India, China, and various Native Americans have described the Earth as riding on a turtle's back. India and China's populations tally of (rounded off) 2,819,000,000 outnumber the 2,382,000,000 Christians in the world. How many Christian fundamentalists or creationists out of that, heck if I know and I'm too bored with this buffoonery to be arsed to look. But they are still vastly outnumbered by those who believe we've all been taking a joyride on a turtle's back for even far longer than the 6000 years Anglican Archbishop of Ireland, James Ussher said in 1656. A date, mind you, which ISN'T EVEN IN THE BIBLE THAT THESE PAGAN THIEVES OF THE WORD ARE ATTRIBUTING IT TO!

Good grief, might as well be arguing whether or not Santa will be dropping off as many gifts as usual next week because elves shouldn't be adversly affected by current supply chain issues.

"That's something that is still being investigated."

As I have said elsewhere, whether to you or not I do not remember, the only time people say that "science can't prove anything", is when the evidence in hand disproves the narrative that they want to be true.

That video I shared is based on science, pure science. We have advanced enough since Darwin imagined his Origin of Species to know that 1. Evolution didn't happen, and 2. You can't even get to a proper theory of evolution until you deal with the Origin of Life. The video is only an hour long, yet you reject it without even watching it. I am not afraid to deal with your petty "contradictions"- why is it that you are afraid of seeing just how desperate your position is of blindly believing in a naturalistic origin to all that we see? There is a "consensus" when it comes to the origin of life- God didn't do it, and yet they have nothing to pose as an alternative, because the science has already shown it happening through "time and chance" to be impossible.

Not "improbable", impossible.

btw, the existence of Bar Kokhba (an actual declared REAL Messiah - at least while it lasted) referred to in that screenshot there has been backed by the coins that refer to him and the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome during 132–135 AD.
This is a verifiable fact.
Faith is irrelevant.

"I'm curious what your source is for the Bible being inspired by God, and how do you know that it is not falsified or inaccurate information"

I will deal with this, under one condition- no more throwing in a thousand of red herrings to muddy the waters. You like to carpet bomb discussions with a myriad of points in order to overwhelm the other party. It is impossible to have a constructive conversation when this happens, and you lose track of all the rabbit trails you set up for the other person to chase down by the time it is done.

Presenting a bunch of second and third-hand points does not prove that you have a grasp of the material, only that you have availed yourself of the many copy/paste arguments on the Internet. Just as in the case of the census, you have made any effort to think of alternative possibilities, you simply accepted that which you felt was logical, allegedly based on what "dozens or hundreds of historians" had to say.

"24" qualifies as "dozens'. "10,000" qualifies as 100 "hundreds", giving you a potential error range of, well, you get the picture.

"If dozens or even hundreds of historians come to a consensus and agree that something is very likely to be true, that is not taking it on faith."

Very few people, of any discipline, do their own research, using the best available evidence- they rely on the findings of others, so having "dozens or even hundreds of historians" all agreeing is not what you think it is. The mere fact that you use such a wide range for your "proof" of consensus is telling- clearly you are making this up as you go.

And in the process most use, they decide based on their own biases which conclusions to accept and which ones to reject, exactly like you are doing here. I presented you with a plausible explanation for one of your alleged contradictions, and you run to the "argument from authority" fallacy. Hitler had a LOT of people that agreed with him, openly and unashamedly, yet no doubt many that agreed with him in word and even deed, did not agree with him internally, but were too afraid to speak up in opposition

So it is with so many in Academia - they are not truly allowed to voice opposition to the "consensus". I recommend you not base your eternity on an alleged consensus- the "consensus" of men (and women) has led to the slaughter of millions of people over the course of our history. Consensus is not always right, nor always pure in motive.

"The explanations he gave in that video were very unimpressive. He basically acknowledged that Christian apologists don't have a definitive solution to that problem, and he threw out a few possible answers which sounded very flimsy."

Um, so says you. Whereas he is speaking from a position of having studied the material at an academic level, you have not. As I just said, you accept and reject "consensus" based on your biases, what you want the truth to be.

Well, take the creation story, for instance. I doubt it needs to be said, but the Earth is not 6000 years old, and dinosaurs didn't coexist with humans. Like I said, not everything is meant to be taken 100% literally, ESPECIALLY the Old Testament.

That's ok. God loves you no matter what- even if you doubt his existence.

Actually there is evidence the earth is a lot younger than what most scientists claim. Just look up "100 limits on the age of the earth". Dinosaurs did coexist with humans, not only are there stories describing them in detail, there are trophies in museums of dinosaurs.
No where does the bible say 6,000 years, that's what man has come up with basing the 'day' in genesis on a literal 24 hour day, which is not what they knew a day as back then. Back when it was written a day was when the sun came up (or light) and when it went down (or darkness).The first 3-4 days could have literally been trillions of years. A 24 hour day isn't required until plants and animals come about.

1. DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.

2. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.

3. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly harmful mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47, September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.

4. The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.

5. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really? Tubes of marine worms, ‘dated’ at 550 million years old, that are soft and flexible and apparently composed of the original organic compounds hold the record (original paper).

6. Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).

When copypasting, it is proper to use quotation marks and cite the source.

"When copypasting, it is proper to use quotation marks and cite the source."

Ad hominem. Whether or not he used "copy/paste" does not detract from the accuracy of the statements. Ad hominem is used when you are unable to deal directly with the point(s) being made.

"ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

That's what he does, except here. Comment histories are available for your perusal for a reason.
It's also what you do, as well as the rest of your ilk.

Citing sources is proper procedure and conduct.
Posting as if it was his own material is plagiarism, dishonest, as well as lazy.
Got a problem with that? Good, you should. Now take it up with him.

1. Scarcity of plant fossils in many formations containing abundant animal / herbivore fossils. E.g., the Morrison Formation (Jurassic) in Montana. See Origins 21(1):51–56, 1994. Also the Coconino sandstone in the Grand Canyon has many track-ways (animals), but is almost devoid of plants. Implication: these rocks are not ecosystems of an ‘era’ buried in situ over eons of time as evolutionists claim. The evidence is more consistent with catastrophic transport then burial during the massive global Flood of Noah’s day. This eliminates supposed evidence for millions of years.

2. Thick, tightly bent strata without sign of melting or fracturing. E.g. the Kaibab upwarp in Grand Canyon indicates rapid folding before the sediments had time to solidify (the sand grains were not elongated under stress as would be expected if the rock had hardened). This wipes out hundreds of millions of years of time and is consistent with extremely rapid formation during the biblical Flood. See Warped earth (written by a geophysicist).

3. Polystrate fossils—tree trunks in coal (Araucaria spp. king billy pines, celery top pines, in southern hemisphere coal). There are also polystrate tree trunks in the Yellowstone fossilized forests and Joggins, Nova Scotia and in many other places. Polystrate fossilized lycopod trunks occur in northern hemisphere coal, again indicating rapid burial / formation of the organic material that became coal.

4. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, coal forms quickly; in weeks for brown coal to months for black coal. It does not need millions of years. Furthermore, long time periods could be an impediment to coal formation because of the increased likelihood of the permineralization of the wood, which would hinder coalification.

5. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, oil forms quickly; it does not need millions of years, consistent with an age of thousands of years.

6. Experiments show that with conditions mimicking natural forces, opals form quickly, in a matter of weeks, not millions of years, as had been claimed.

7. Evidence for rapid, catastrophic formation of coal beds speaks against the hundreds of millions of years normally claimed for this, including Z-shaped seams that point to a single depositional event producing these layers.

When copypasting, it is proper to use quotation marks and cite the source.

You do realize I'm (sort of) agreeing with you, right?

It's kind of a long quote, but St. Augustine of Hippo said it best: "Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion."

*The creation story does not provide the date of the Earth, and neither does the current cosmology from secular science. There are things we see on our own Solar System, as well as the rest of the Universe that simply cannot be if the Universe is ~13 billion years old.

*Dinosaurs did exist with humans, and would have been on the Ark. They do not start out huge- they were all small at birth, and most of them were around the size of today's chickens.

*When Jesus spoke of the Old Testament, He spoke of it is literal history. If you cannot believe in the veracity of the Old Testament, you have no reason to affirm that God loves you.

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

-St. Augustine of Hippo

1. St Augustine is not one of the writers God used to write any of the books of the Bible.
2. Nothing I have said is precluded by his statement here.
3. I am very well versed on all manner of issues regarding what we are speaking about here.
4. St Augustine is not here to take part in the conversation- you are. So what do you know that discounts anything that I have said thus far?

1. Unrelated
2. Actually it is
3. So am I
4. Show me a human fossil in the same rock layer as a dinosaur fossil, multiple dating methods used to prove the age of rocks, etc.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am a religious person (a Catholic), but some of the stuff you are saying is downright silly.

Unless you are born again, you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

What does that even mean?

Indeed, every church has its flaws, but some are more deadly than others. A false gospel and a false Christ, like that of the Catholics, is unable to save on the Day of Judgment.

Unless you are born again, you will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

p.s. According to the Bible, any born again believer is a saint, and praying to dead people is useless.

The Roman Catholic Church created Christianity.
What you're saying is the equivalent of saying the Jews claim on their own tribal God, Yahweh, is false

- oh, wait, you do say that silly claim also.
Congrats, you're a 2nd tier removed from the source spawn of the Jackal, seated in Rome, who would steal the Word and called it their own, but corrupting it beyond recognition.

According to the Bible, Judge not lest ye be judged is a thing. That goes for canonizing people just for getting their head dunked in water.
The Bible also says only 144,000 Sainted Chosen (that would be Jews to you pagan Gentiles) would enter the Pearly Gates, plus a few additional based on the righteousness of their works. The number of your so-called 'born agains' that die per single day exceeds the entire number of non-Jews that will be on that list. Let that sink in.

Oh, how I feel like St. Jerome.

LMAO "false Christ"

1. Again, unrelated.
2. Perhaps you should reread what he said.
3. Since we're quoting the Bible, Matthew 7:5 and Proverbs 9:8.
4. HAHAHA! So you're a protestant, eh? I find it funny how you lecture me, a Catholic, about the Bible, when you Protestants took 7 books out of the Bible. Because it didn't fit your preconceived notions. Every church (even yours!) is bound to have it's flaws. We are only human and nowhere near perfect.

Again, I encourage you to reread St. Augustine's quote. Really think about what he is saying.

Catholicism only CREATED Christianity 2000 years ago, that's all.

Oh, wait, it was some 2 generations removed from horn and hoof worshipping fella from the hinterlands of Germania who founded it 500 years ago because his people were still not domesticated enough to feel comfy with a structured society and its centralized authority and thus couldn't follow the Pope?
OOpsie guess I was off 1.5 millenia!

If dinosaurs existed with humans then why is there no photographic evidence?

Human footprints made at the same time as that of a dinosaur. There are attempts to refute this, but there you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RDkOOYeHU4

"Creationists only have lousy arguments which have been debunked over and over again. That should tell you something"

No they haven't.

"No they haven't"

Care to elaborate on that?

Good night! I just got home from work around an hour ago. Do you do nothing but sit on Imgflip waiting for someone to pay attention to you? Here's a thought- get a job and do something productive for a change.

And no, prancing about like a child's plaything is NOT productive!

Bruh, did you miss the whole flood part of things? If the entire earth flooded, we don’t know where the different animals were located back then.

Must've been a mighty long cruise traveling the world gathering pairs of millions of animal species, not to mention plants - all in a 500 foot long boat. This would have to have been done PRIOR to the flood.

Not to mention freshwater fish, killed by the extra salt, or would that include ocean fish dying off too, given that those waters were significantly diluted?

Of course the "Myths are real as long as they don't come directly from the originals the Hebrews got them from" crowd will say "But the seeds, yo!"
Yeah, try storing seeds for over a year in brackish water and see how they turn out. Desert plants would now be extinct, the spores of ferns, moss, heck, even fungus, molds and bacteria, etc, that didn't hitch a ride would be gone.
Did Noah bring Lungfish aboard?
Worms, gone. Lungless salamanders, gone, that frog in the pic, gone.

Lots of inbreeding in the Bible too, or did these fine family of survivors go off to seek wives in Nod like Cain did too because Nod already had loads of people when Yahweh created the Levant?

Anyways, 500' worth of animal species all set to disembark to live off nothing but coconut palms! Yeah, they'll start fruiting in just days! Sorry, humingbirds, you're extinct too!

My last two lines was supposed to cover lack of plants, flowering, fruiting, and thus food provided by them - hummingbirds who will die within hours of not having nectar being an example of a chain of various others who depend on them to feed and others to feed on them in turn. I tried brevity for once as it was getting late/early [dawn]!

By the time they lose their tails, froglet lungs are fully operational, except the for one in the pic, the Bornean Flat Headed Frog, which is the only species discovered to not have them:

https://www.edgeofexistence.org/blog/species-of-the-week-bornean-flat-headed-frog/

"Like what, doctor?"

Like the rings of Saturn. Were our Solar System truly 4.5 billion years in age, the rings would have been captured by Saturn's gravity billions of years ago. This was confirmed when Casini made its close approach to the planet. Based on the rate in which the rings are 'raining' down on Saturn, they will last no longer than 250,000 years from now.

And then there is all that has been discovered since Hubble was fixed. One of the most recent discoveries is alleged to show us images that took 13 billion years to get to Earth. Those images are of fully formed and 'adult' galaxies. If the universe were truly 13 billion years old, forming from a point of singularity and spreading outward (at sub light speed), then we should see . . . nothing from 13 billion light years away.

Same with the galaxies we see more clearly- were they billions of years old, according to the "consensus" on celestial mechanics, they should not still have well defined 'arms' in the spirals- they should be something of a muddy mess. They know this, and so, using all of their consensual assumptions, they made up a material that allows them to plug some numbers into these equations so it all makes sense again. They call this material, "black matter". It is supposed to be more plentiful than the matter we see, so it should be everywhere. You can't see it. No one has ever worked tests on it in a laboratory, yet it is allegedly everywhere, and accounts for the mass needed to explain why things look "younger" than they should be.

I can think of no better example of how bankrupt science is than with the example of dark matter. Having faith, which can be an informed faith, in God and the Bible is somehow anti-scientific and anti-intellectual, and yet so many have formed a "consensus" over something that no one has ever seen. "Oh, but we CAN see it! We can see its effects on the galaxies!" Wrong- if the assumptions are wrong a priori to the discovery of dark matter, then its existence is not proven this way.

I got the day off for referring to this 15yo as a non-adult, after he said I (and near everyone else) was 12!

Then don't do it then if it's such an issue to you.

Kind of like multiple genders and socialism working....

Hope you aren’t wrong.

Well, about that "make-believe" nonsense . . .

You can not reason with people who choose to believe things that have no supporting evidence. Their motives for doing so are all self serving.

1. They can justify hate via rellgion.

2. It gives them comfort rather than admitting they are worm food.

3. Just accept "their" particular religion and you get to go to "heaven" lol

The humorous things to me about "Christians"

1. They literally shit all over their own commandments daily.

2. They LOVE Isreal a country full of people who do NOT believe "Jesus" was "God" and has what they view as SOCIALISM

Ponder the amount of total shit you have to be full of to claim your a "Christian"

"Cartoon characters exist in the world of fiction, yes"

I don't suppose we could get a pic of you in your Brony costume? Now THAT would be a dose of reality!

🔶 "DTuck

"When copypasting, it is proper to use quotation marks and cite the source."

Ad hominem. Whether or not he used "copy/paste" does not detract from the accuracy of the statements. Ad hominem is used when you are unable to deal directly with the point(s) being made."

⏹️ "Octavia_Melody

Palpatine Ironic | IRONIC | image tagged in palpatine ironic | made w/ Imgflip meme maker"

⏹️ "Modda
"ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

That's what he does, except here. Comment histories are available for your perusal for a reason.
It's also what you do, as well as the rest of your ilk.

Citing sources is proper procedure and conduct.
Posting as if it was his own material is plagiarism, dishonest, as well as lazy.
Got a problem with that? Good, you should. Now take it up with him."