Blasphemy and Duck Rape

1) Some, but not all. So the huge amount of aquatic life that cannot live in both would become extinct... but it didn't.

2) The Bible states that the flood covered mountains. A local flood cannot cover mountains.

3) Where did this fresh water come from... and where did it go? Many animals cannot live in freshwater and would die... but they didn't.

4) In general they do and that is one of many factors. Animals cannot in the space of a few days change from sal****er to freshwater and back to freshwater. Evolutionary changes take large amounts of time, not days.

You give pedants a bad name.

1) You have back tracked on your original statement that no species can tolerate both environments.

2) Once again you choose to ignore the concept of a localised event being viewed in the context of an individual's life experience and understanding.

3) It bloody well rained,and rained, and rained again.

4) You asserted that larger bones are an adaptation to salt water. This is not the case, as I pointed out. Larger bones are found in larger fish, which tend to be found in the sea because it is a much more spacious environment. Given you are so keen on evolution, you can surely understand the effect of growing into a niche ? ( You don't find things the size of Basking or Whale Sharks in fresh water for a reason ).

You give pedants a bad name.

 

1) You have back tracked on your original statement that no species can tolerate both environments.

2) Once again you choose to ignore the concept of a localised event being viewed in the context of an individual's life experience and understanding.

3) It bloody well rained,and rained, and rained again.

4) You asserted that larger bones are an adaptation to salt water. This is not the case, as I pointed out. Larger bones are found in larger fish, which tend to be found in the sea because it is a much more spacious environment. Given you are so keen on evolution, you can surely understand the effect of growing into a niche ? ( You don't find things the size of Basking or Whale Sharks in fresh water for a reason ).

So basically, you’re saying there was a small, localised flood and some people drowned. This is interpreted as being proof of the wrath of God almighty and not simply a freak weather event?

You give pedants a bad name.

 

1) You have back tracked on your original statement that no species can tolerate both environments.

2) Once again you choose to ignore the concept of a localised event being viewed in the context of an individual's life experience and understanding.

3) It bloody well rained,and rained, and rained again.

4) You asserted that larger bones are an adaptation to salt water. This is not the case, as I pointed out. Larger bones are found in larger fish, which tend to be found in the sea because it is a much more spacious environment. Given you are so keen on evolution, you can surely understand the effect of growing into a niche ? ( You don't find things the size of Basking or Whale Sharks in fresh water for a reason ).

1) I didn't say that. Even if I did, that doesn't remove the point that not all could survive which debunks the account in the Bible.

2) The Bible does not say it was localised. It also does not say do not take this literally. If god was intelligent he wouldn't want to create confusion over which bits actually happened and which are stories.

3) That does not explain where the water came from or went afterwards.

4) Bones structure is one of many differences. I didn't say it was the only one.

1) I didn't say that. Even if I did, that doesn't remove the point that not all could survive which debunks the account in the Bible.

2) The Bible does not say it was localised. It also does not say do not take this literally. If god was intelligent he wouldn't want to create confusion over which bits actually happened and which are stories.

3) That does not explain where the water came from or went afterwards.

4) Bones structure is one of many differences. I didn't say it was the only one.

Unable to form a rebuttal?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word said:

#1495

Freshwater fish can not live in a global sal****er flood and vice versa!

#1620

A} There are skeletal differences between salt water and freshwater fish. Salt-water fish have larger bones to deal with the environment.

Cut him some slack, he's been annihilated on here, outed for using Wikipedia for his source of knowledge now he's got this to deal with, https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-utd-sue-football-manager-22071483

it's be a terrible day for the fella, maybe he should pray tomorrow is better?

Unable to form a rebuttal?

I am getting fed up of repeating myself. Your brain is as impermeable as sheet steel.

Cut him some slack, he's been annihilated on here

It is 2020 and you don't understand the basics of evolution.

I am getting fed up of repeating myself. Your brain is as impermeable as sheet steel.

My post pointed out the flaws in your answers.

It is 2020 and you don't understand the basics of evolution.

You do realise no amount of emojis makes you come out of this any better?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word said:

That does not say all freshwater fish. Nor does it matter if I did say all. It is completely irrelevant to rebutting the point that many species cannot live in both... yet they all lived before, during and after the flood. Proving the flood did not happen.

You do realise no amount of emojis makes you come out of this any better?

You don't understand the basics of evolution. You have demonstrated that you don't today when you said it has an end point. I may be pedantic, boring, irritating... but on this you are just being dumb (and wrong... very wrong)!

You don't understand the basics of evolution. You have demonstrated that you don't today when you said it has an end point. I may be pedantic, boring, irritating... but on this you are just being dumb (and wrong... very wrong)!

That isn’t what I meant but Given your tedious and inability to comprehend anything other than black and white it’s no surprise you didn’t grasp it and I couldn’t be arsed yo explain it. Plus how you’ve got the neck to tell me I don’t understand it when you don’t think a fish can adapt to its surroundings but can change into a human!

in any case you’re the one that has spent yet another day posting all day about something you don’t even think happened and being proven wrong time and again do you do what you always do, move the goal posts, challenged a nuance of an answer with a series of tedious questions or ignore it then claim no one answered you.

Plus how you’ve got the neck to tell me I don’t understand it when you don’t think a fish can adapt to its surroundings but can change into a human!

I'll try explaining this to you again...

- humans common ancestor with fish was 375 million year ago

- in 375 million years you have a vast amount of time for populations to change

You appear to think 375 million years for chances to occur is comparable to animals changing during a few days of rain from salt-water to freshwater and back again.

Can you really not see the difference between small changes in generations over 375 million years is vastly different from changes over 40 nights of rain?

I'll try explaining this to you again...

 

- humans common ancestor with fish was 375 million year ago

- in 375 million years you have a vast amount of time for populations to change

 

You appear to think 375 million years for chances to occur is comparable to animals changing during a few days of rain from salt-water to freshwater and back again.

 

Can you really not see the difference between small changes in generations over 375 million years is vastly different from changes over 40 nights of rain?

Repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over again doesn’t make you right.

Repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over again doesn’t make you right.

You are unable to explain why I am wrong. Give it a go!

375 million years = lots of time to evolve from fish to man

40 days of rain = not enough time for even one new generation of an animal, let alone for them to adapt from salt-water to freshwater

It really is basic stuff here Turkish!

Repeating yourself over and over and over and over and over again doesn’t make you right.

I agree you do not become correct. thanks for admitting defeat on this one.

You are unable to explain why I am wrong. Give it a go!

 

375 million years = lots of time to evolve from fish to man

40 days of rain = not enough time for even one new generation of an animal, let alone for them to adapt from salt-water to freshwater

 

It really is basic stuff here Turkish!

Do the one about god wants to murder all non Jewish babies again, you’ve not mentioned that one for a while

Do the one about god wants to murder all non Jewish babies again, you’ve not mentioned that one for a while

Admitting defeat on your understanding of how huge changes are possible over 375,000,000 years but not possible over 40 days of rain?

We can talk about the mass murder by god of the babies of Egypt if you want. Nice kind and loving god to do that isn't he? Those babies were completely innocent and he murdered them.

Admitting defeat on your understanding of how huge changes are possible over 375,000,000 years but not possible over 40 days of rain?

 

We can talk about the mass murder by god of the babies of Egypt if you want. Nice kind and loving god to do that isn't he? Those babies were completely innocent and he murdered them.

Laughable, you’ve just repeated that line over and over again until you’ve convinced yourself that’s what I said haven’t you. Stick with Wikipedia searches, chump. :lol::lol::lol:

Laughable, you’ve just repeated that line over and over again until you’ve convinced yourself that’s what I said haven’t you.

You compared the changes of human's common ancestor with fish to human, with changes over a few days.

That shows you lack understanding that small changes over hundreds of millions of years over a vast number of generations can lead to big differences and that it is not remotely the same as thinking a population of fish can alter significantly during a few days of rain.

Stick with Wikipedia searches, chump. :lol::lol::lol:

My explanation coming from Wikipedia of want constitutes a scientific theory was correct. That is what a scientific theory is, the fact it came from Wikipedia doesn't make it wrong. Are you seriously denying that is an accurate representation of what it is?

People often confuse general usage of 'theory' as just being a guess, but a'scientific theory' is not merely a guess, it is an explanation of something using demonstrable evidence.

Blimey, I was working today and have just checked on the forum. This is hilarious.

MLG. Please educate yourself. Type these words into Google, then read some of the links.

"is the Noah and The Ark story a metaphor"

Also substitute "allegory" for metaphor.

Believe it or not, not everything is literal, or intended to be.

That does not say all freshwater fish. Nor does it matter if I did say all. It is completely irrelevant to rebutting the point that many species cannot live in both... yet they all lived before, during and after the flood. Proving the flood did not happen.

Those are your exact words, quoted in their entirity;

"Freshwater fish can not live in a global sal****er flood and vice versa!", does not qualify, this is a definite statement. So not only does it state, categorically, that fresh water fish cannot live in salt water, it also says the Flood was SALT water.

Are you related to Vicky "Yeh but, no but..." Pollard ?

My post pointed out the flaws in your answers.

No, your post reiterated the flaws in your brain.

Blimey, I was working today and have just checked on the forum. This is hilarious.

 

MLG. Please educate yourself. Type these words into Google, then read some of the links.

 

"is the Noah and The Ark story a metaphor"

 

Also substitute "allegory" for metaphor.

 

Believe it or not, not everything is literal, or intended to be.

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

 

My explanation coming from Wikipedia of want constitutes a scientific theory was correct. That is what a scientific theory is, the fact it came from Wikipedia doesn't make it wrong. Are you seriously denying that is an accurate representation of what it is?

 

People often confuse general usage of 'theory' as just being a guess, but a'scientific theory' is not merely a guess, it is an explanation of something using demonstrable evidence.

Wikipedia is your go to source for verification of your theories :lol::lol:

Blimey, I was working today and have just checked on the forum. This is hilarious.

 

MLG. Please educate yourself. Type these words into Google, then read some of the links.

 

"is the Noah and The Ark story a metaphor"

 

Also substitute "allegory" for metaphor.

 

Believe it or not, not everything is literal, or intended to be.

Next he’ll be claiming the Bible says god made the universe in 7 24 hour days.

Those are your exact words, quoted in their entirity;

"Freshwater fish can not live in a global sal****er flood and vice versa!", does not qualify, this is a definite statement. So not only does it state, categorically, that rresh water fish cannot line in salt water, it also says the Flood was SALT water.

 

Are you related to Vicky "Yeh but, no but..." Pollard ?

'and vice versa' = whichever way round it was!

As it didn't actually happen the flood water was neither salt or freshwater... because it is made up nonsense!

Wikipedia is your go to source for verification of your theories :lol::lol:

You have now proven you don't understand what a theory is! Put a dictionary on your birthday list.

Next he’ll be claiming the Bible says god made the universe in 7 24 hour days.

Millions of people do believe that.

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the creation story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

 

You have now proven you don't understand what a theory is! Put a dictionary on your birthday list.

Oh he’s getting personal, all upset again are we? Bless.

'and vice versa' = whichever way round it was!

 

As it didn't actually happen the flood water was neither salt or freshwater... because it is made up nonsense!

 

Allegory......Metaphor......

Allegory......Metaphor......

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah and creation stories literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should believe the Noah or creation story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

Millions of people do believe that.

 

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the creation story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

If some one says to you “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you reprimand them because there aren’t literally cats and dogs falling from the sky?

Millions of people do believe that.

 

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the creation story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah and creation stories literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should believe the Noah or creation story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

He’s repeating himself again. :lol:

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah and creation stories literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should believe the Noah or creation story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

1) If you don't like the story, don't read the book. As somebody else said earlier, the Bible is a mechanism for social control, however if people are happy for that, that is their right. You're like an Anti-Inquisition.

2) Yes, I agree. ( Though I am not sure what point you are making here ). Again, that is their right.

3) God has a far greater understanding of His/Her grand scheme than you could ever comprehend. Perhaps your mindset is an inegral part of it, so you are actually acting under God's direct guidance.

There is no confusion over the story, you have the choice to believe it or not as God gave you Free Will.

If some one says to you “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you reprimand them because there aren’t literally cats and dogs falling from the sky?

Try actually answering the questions in that post.

The book is supposed to be the word of god. It makes no attempt to explain that it is not all literal, nor does it tell you which parts are literal and which parts are not.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should believe the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

And with that I am doing a Guided Missile, and putting this entire thread on 'ignore', before I catch MLGitis.

Getting this thread back on topic...

If you rape a duck, is that fresh water or salt?

1) Can you direct me to where in the Bible says that not all of this should be taken literally?

2) Do you agree millions of people do take the Noah story literally?

3) Why would an intelligent God make it unclear which stories are supposed to be taken literally or not? Clearly he has failed making it clear as millions of people do take it literally.

1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

 

He clearly failed! As there is a huge amount of confusion over if you should beleive the Noah story is literal. Millions think you should.... millions think you shouldn't. So God ****ed up getting his message across without confusion!

Have you googled and read, or are you still arrogantly holding on that your understanding is correct? Contempt before investigation Matthew..

1.No. Show me a piece of abstract art that says "this is a piece of abstract art" on it. The story is a metaphor / allegory. Other Bible stories are too.

2. No idea.

3. God is a deity. Not an author.

If some one says to you “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you reprimand them because there aren’t literally cats and dogs falling from the sky?

Indeed.

1) If you don't like the story, don't read the book. As somebody else said earlier, the Bible is a mechanism for social control, however if people are happy for that, that is their right. You're like an Anti-Inquisition.

2) Yes, I agree. ( Though I am not sure what point you are making here ). Again, that is their right.

3) God has a far greater understanding of His/Her grand scheme than you could ever comprehend. Perhaps your mindset is an inegral part of it, so you are actually acting under God's direct guidance.

 

4) There is no confusion over the story, you have the choice to believe it or not as God gave you Free Will.

1) You said parts of it are not to be taken literally. Yet the book does not say that.

2) My point is that it is an inept god who wants his message to the world to be spread by a book that some think is literal and others think should not be all taken literally. That causes confusion.

3) 1 Corinthians 14:33

For God is not the author of confusion

That is clearly false as there is confusion over to take it literally or not. Millions do and millions don't = confusion!

4) If a creator god is all knowing and knows the future it is logically impossible for humans to have free will. He knew when he created humans what they would do in the future and he created them in such a way that he knew their future... thus free will is impossible.

Have you googled and read, or are you still arrogantly holding on that your understanding is correct? Contempt before investigation Matthew..

 

1.No. Show me a piece of abstract art that says "this is a piece of abstract art" on it. The story is a metaphor / allegory. Other bibles are too.

2. No idea.

3. God is a deity. Not an author.

1) The Bible is not abstract art. It is believed by millions to be the word of god. If people are deciding themselves which is literal and which isn't then that leads to an unclear message.

2) Well they do. Bible belt Americans believe in the literal Noah genocide flood story. There is a $100m theme park for the ark!

3) Millions of Christians believe the Bible is the word of god.

Getting this thread back on topic...

 

If you rape a duck, is that fresh water or salt?

Check your duck toaster for an answer...

1) The Bible is not abstract art. It is believed by millions to be the word of god. If people are deciding themselves which is literal and which isn't then that leads to an unclear message.

2) Well they do. Bible belt Americans believe in the literal Noah genocide flood story. There is a $100m theme park for the ark!

3) Millions of Christians believe the Bible is the word of god.

There used to be a pub in townhill park called the ark with a barbers next door called Noah’s. That doesn’t mean every one who went for a pint or a hair cut thought the world was once covered in salt water.

If some one says to you “it’s raining cats and dogs” do you reprimand them because there aren’t literally cats and dogs falling from the sky?

Indeed.

This is deeply flawed and irrelevant as The Bible is claimed by many to be the infallible word of god. It is not comparable to a person using such phrases.

1) The Bible is not abstract art. It is believed by millions to be the word of god. If people are deciding themselves which is literal and which isn't then that leads to an unclear message.

2) Well they do. Bible belt Americans believe in the literal Noah genocide flood story. There is a $100m theme park for the ark!

3) Millions of Christians believe the Bible is the word of god.

As others have said, your stubbornness is unreal. I hate to burst your bubble, but your understanding / interpretation may not be correct.

An allegory, by its nature, is open to interpretation. Just dare to open your mind and do a bit of research into the metaphor interpretation.

Well they do. Bible belt Americans believe in the literal Noah genocide flood story. There is a $100m theme park for the ark!

There used to be a pub in townhill park called the ark with a barbers next door called Noah’s. That doesn’t mean every one who went for a pint or a hair cut thought the world was once covered in salt water.

Yet again... another completely flawed comparison.

- The name of a barbers or pub is irrelevant to getting a pint or haircut.

- Why would a non literal Noah ark believing person want to visit this place...?

It is a museum full of claims of the literal flood story! The exhibits claim it literally happened!