Especially nymphs.
I like nymphs.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]doogie wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Far be it from me to try and convince you of the sort but maybe you’d like to look into it a bit more. You don’t strike me as a card carrying member of the Closed Mind Club.[/quote]
Push, is your mind open to the possibility that your faith is misplaced? That there is no god, and the Bible wasn’t divinely inspired?
I fully expect some snarky response, but I’m genuinely curious since you accuse others of having closed minds so often.[/quote]
Have you read the Bible? All of it, not a few lines or a book or two?[/quote]
In my teens, yes. Not since then.
I was once a believer, but started having those questions that were answered with “You just have to have faith”. That’s when I realized I didn’t have that faith anymore.
[/quote]
Fair enough, if you say you have read the actual whole thing I cannot say you haven’t. I just get irritated with those who see fit to criticize and ridicule something they have never read. It happens far to often. [/quote]
I don’t think I criticized or ridiculed it. I was just curious if Push’s mind is as open as he wants everyone else’s to be.[/quote]
You have misjudged what I’m doing here. You’re not getting it. I’ve been doing this for a long, long time here.
The Faithful taunt the Faithful about their Faith while Faithfully ignoring their own Faith. I’m the one exposing the hypocrisy – not you.
[/quote]
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith, they believe what can be proved and not things that require belief without faith.
Comparing that to religion if moronic.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You can go look that one up. I’m here to have a philosophical debate and joust with my friends (especially one of them) and smack sand-kicking bullies around – sand-kicking bullies that justify their behavior because they “once believed” but now have Seen the Light of Scientism.[/quote]
Uhhh… would I be the friend, or the sand-kicking bully? 
[quote]Not sure how long she could crank 'em out. Probably much more than today’s woman.
I believe Jewish tradition says Eve cranked out 53.
Do the math (or go read someone who has). It’s not hard to get to a billion folks in what we’d think is a short period of time. Remember, the environmental factors were vastly different.
Now, again, if your mantra – expressed, assumed or implied – is “the present is the key to the past,” then of course, all of this will be bullshit to you.[/quote]
A healthy woman these days, if she starts at sexual maturity (that’s age thirteen, folks) and carries on until menopause, can probably bear twenty-five live children. That’s not counting all of the miscarriages and stillbirths.
Now, for a woman to be able to bear twice that number, she would have to have ovaries of a different configuration as a modern woman, or a larger number of eggs to start out with than a girl today would. Not to mention an endocrine system that would keep producing oestrogen and progesterone for six or seven hundred years, and liver and kidneys and heart valves and hip and shoulder joints and spinal disks a hell of a lot more durable than the ones we’ve got now. I imagine Methuselah being a solid mass of scar tissue.
The Betz pyramidal cells in the human cerebral cortex (which make it possible for information to be passed from one cortical layer to another) would also have to be seven to ten times as numerous as they are in human brains today, as they really are the limiting factor in human longevity.
The only thing that gives me a bit of pause in the entire book of Genesis is the verse in which God says that his spirit will not contend with man forever, and that the number of a man’s days shall be one hundred and twenty years. As it happens, the one hundred twenty years is the upper limit for the survival of the Betz pyramidal cells, after which the brain can no longer tell the body to stay alive.
In other words, the brain’s spirit does not contend with the body of man forever, but numbers its days at one hundred twenty years.
So no, not all bullshit.
I am not a Buddhist (though I’ve fucked quite a few), so I don’t have a mantra…mantras being meaningless phrases uttered repeatedly, intended to keep one from employing the conscious mind.
I tend to think that the past is a key to the present, and also that the part of the story featuring us pipsqueaks amounts to one or two sentences on the last page of a billion-page book that’s still being written.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I can’t imagine any reason to believe the Noahs ark story. In my mind,its part of the creation myths,etc… that cultures have. This one is in the bible so some people believe it,even tho they don’t believe any myths that aren’t in the bible[/quote]
It has nothing to do with creation.[/quote]
notice the etc.
[/quote]
Lol, no. You said "in my mind, it’s part of the creation myths. It literally has zero to do with creation at all.
[quote]
It is like the myths that many cultures have. Better? [/quote]
Is fine.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
Groan.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I’ve been getting at, especially with SM, Varq,and now this Confused feller, is that the Bible stories so many take issue with due to their perceived impossibilities are very basically and simply told. And briefly.
To dismiss them because all you really know about them is what your third grade Sunday School teacher taught you is a grave disservice. Yeah, it allows you to be a taunting sumbitch (not directing that at anyone in particular) like the proverbial schoolyard bully that makes all the other kids laugh but you don’t really understand that which you make fun of and when that happens your intellect contracts, or at least it never is allowed to expand. And we don’t want that, do we?[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying; however, Noah’s Ark is a good example, imo, of why Christians should not take the bible literally. The Ark was smaller than a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier and said Aircraft carrier could not house a pair of every animal on the Earth + food + fresh water. It couldn’t hold a fraction of the animals on this earth plus necessities. It’s logistically impossibly.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varq, do you believe the present is the key to the past?[/quote]
I tend to think that the opposite is true, but that there is more past that we can imagine.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
Groan.[/quote]
Everyone has faith, in something. You know this lol.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
This isn’t about scientific principles; it’s about belief in fundamental assumptions. Scientific principles have absolutely nothing to do with it. The fact that you don’t grasp this speaks volumes.[/quote]
So you’ve completely abandoned any hope of arguing abortion and are on to your original purpose in this thread, religion bashing?
Nice.
As Jack said, you got smoked, lol.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
What I’ve been getting at, especially with SM, Varq,and now this Confused feller, is that the Bible stories so many take issue with due to their perceived impossibilities are very basically and simply told. And briefly.
To dismiss them because all you really know about them is what your third grade Sunday School teacher taught you is a grave disservice. Yeah, it allows you to be a taunting sumbitch (not directing that at anyone in particular) like the proverbial schoolyard bully that makes all the other kids laugh but you don’t really understand that which you make fun of and when that happens your intellect contracts, or at least it never is allowed to expand. And we don’t want that, do we?[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying; however, Noah’s Ark is a good example, imo, of why Christians should not take the bible literally. The Ark was smaller than a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier and said Aircraft carrier could not house a pair of every animal on the Earth + food + fresh water. It couldn’t hold a fraction of the animals on this earth plus necessities. It’s logistically impossibly. [/quote]
It would have taken an ark three times the size of the one described in Genesis just to house all of the currently extant species of beetle.
Perhaps what Noah carried on the ark were the DNA samples of every species of terrestrial flora and fauna, from which which he then cloned breeding populations in his makeshift laboratory on Ararat. When he got drunk and Ham walked in on him jerking off to the Paleoboy Magazine centrefold, he got so flustered that he accidentally knocked over the tray containing all the dinosaur DNA, along with the DNA for the unicorns, centaurs and Cthulhu.
I mean, if people lived into their 900s back then, it is not at all unreasonable to assume that they also possessed cloning technology.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]confusion wrote:
I can’t imagine any reason to believe the Noahs ark story. In my mind,its part of the creation myths,etc… that cultures have. This one is in the bible so some people believe it,even tho they don’t believe any myths that aren’t in the bible[/quote]
It has nothing to do with creation.[/quote]
notice the etc.
[/quote]
Lol, no. You said "in my mind, it’s part of the creation myths. It literally has zero to do with creation at all.
[quote]
It is like the myths that many cultures have. Better? [/quote]
Is fine.[/quote]
lol. If you read it a third time you may notice it says part of tbe creation myths,etc. The etc. Implies more than just creation myths,but anyhoo…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
People who believe in scientific principles don’t have faith
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
Groan.[/quote]
Everyone has faith, in something. You know this lol. [/quote]
No, I was groaning at Perlenbacher’s inadvertent self-contradiction, and Push picking up the fumble and gaining a yard. I mean, the goalposts are hundreds of miles apart, but it was still a yard.
[quote]confusion wrote:
I would like to see a single fossil,or anything else(other than the bible) that shows people lived 600 years or more.[/quote]
Funny isn’t it how the people who demand sources require non for their entire belief system.