Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Drich]

Drich there's a hole in your theory, Eden would have been submerged for quite some time (hundreds of thousands of years) to allow the formation of all of the oil that is now there, correct? How could Adam and Eve survive in the garden of Eden when it was submerged. After all oil only forms from dead aquatic plant and marine life, hence why there were no dinosaurs in "Eden".

http://www.livescience.com/33087-how-oil...oleum.html

---

God would have been singing this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-ejyHzz3XE

---

Getting this thread back on topic for a temporary period of time, I still don't know why the ground had to be cursed because Eve ate an apple of knowledge. God should have made a kitchen and bound Eve to it by thistle branches. But hey, nobody's perfect.

Maybe look up Gondwana, and tell me again how the region in question was on the sea floor. You would think you would have checked ALL your facts before giving me an oppertunity to make you look foolish, but hey, nobody's perfect eh?

---

Crude oil is formed from the decayed remnants of aquatic plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago.

says scientist who believe that petroleum is a fossil based fuel. There are other 'scientists' who believe oil is a byproduct of Teutonic activity. The point? No one knows for sure, at best you have a theory you like Kinda like I do.

Large portions of the modern day Middle East were once submerged under a large, now non-existent sea called the Tethys Sea.

Sorry bunny no, well 2/3's no. Tethys was not one large ocean in the region being discussed. It was 3 seperate bodies of water that occupied different portions of the Arabian plate at one time or another. 'Scientist' project that roughly 1/2 of the Arabian plate was submerged at one point or another. And, of that 1/2 only 1/3 of it was under water at a time.
http://www.geoexpro.com/article/Why_So_M...94fc1.aspx
(Tethys is discussed in the paragraph under the fourth pic from the top.)

Why wont you just outright say where you believe the garden was?

I have a few times. Well as close as I can because as I have already explained we only know where two of the four rivers mentioned in genesis are.

Telling us to get a map and research before you making us look like fools is foolish, to say the least. If you truly think your 'layman theory' is correct beyond all doubt, and that there are NO fossils coming out of that region, then by all means Drich--put it up for scrutiny. I've already pointed out to you how your 'garden oil deposits' are incorrect, lets keep goin.

so it is your opinion that 'fossil fuel scientists' would admit to there have being the garden of Eden as the primary source for all the oil in that region if they had proof?

Also your 'theory' has already been done. Unless this is you?

---

The Dinosaurs Story -Science vs. The Bible posted 5/21/2008 8:39:05 PM | 4 kudos what's this? report abuse tagged: dinosaurs, bible

justsayyeah7

Dinosaurs have been a fascination of mankind ever since the first dinosaur bones were discovered in the 1820's. The word dinosaur means 'terrible lizard.'

Dinosaurs are always thought of as huge monsters when in reality most of them were the size of elephants or smaller.

Most scientists(excluding creationist scientists) tell us dinosaurs lived for millions of years, millions of years ago. This is just theories of these scientists of course since there is no measuring stick they use to prove this. The scientists that believe dinosaurs lived millions of years ago are evolutionists and they try to fit the story of dinosaurs into their evolution views. The problem with the evolution theories is that the dinosaur bones do not show it. Ever go to a dinosaur museum and see a partial Triceratops? No. But if the dinosaurs evolved then where is the partial Triceratops? Every Triceratops in every museum is 100% Triceratops. There is no fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. These scientists also believe that dinosaurs and humans never lived on the eath at the same time. The only reason these types of theories exists is because these scientists like to try and disprove the bible and promote their evolution views.

The bible on the other hand gives us clues to dinosaurs and humans living on the planet at the same time. First off, bible scholars tell us that the Hebrew word for day used in Genesis 1 can only mean an ordinary day in this context. So when the bible tells us that God created the earth in 6 days, then it was 6 actual days. Some scientists will tell you that 'who knows how long each day was, each day could have represented years.' That is them using theories with no proof again.

In Genesis 1 we read that God created beasts of the earth and man on the 6th day and then on the 7th day He rested. The book of Genesis was written by Moses in the 16th Century BC and describes events that took place between the 4th and 3rd Millieneum before Christ. That means roughly 4,000 to 3,000 years BC. That would show that dinosaurs lived only 5,000 to 6,000 years ago.

So since the bible tells us that beasts and man were created on the same day, that would say that man and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time.

Then what happened to the dinosaurs? Evolution scientists will tell you many different theories to the dinosaurs demise. Here are some of those theories;

Dinosaurs starved to death; they died from overeating; they were poisoned; they became blind from cataracts and could not reproduce; mammals ate their eggs. Other causes include-volcanic dust, poisonous gases, comets, sunspots, meteorites, mass suicide, http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_89453/Th...Bible.html constipation, parasites, shrinking brain (and greater stupidity), slipped discs, changes in the composition of air, etc.

It is obvious that evolutionist don't know what happened and are just guessing. Why else would they have so many different reasons? In the bible, scholars believe that the flood that covered the entire earth is the reason. This is when we had the story of Noah's Ark. The creatures that could fit were placed inside the Ark by either pairs or in sevens and the rest all drowned. This would include the large dinosaurs that were too large to fit in the ark and they drowned too. The creatures who drowned were buried under the mud created by the flood.

One fact that I find interesting is that no dinosaur fossils have ever been found in the Iraq/Saudi Arabia region(also know back then as the Garden of Eden). This is the region that people lived in prior to the flood. Dinosaurs have been found in every region in the world except this one is very interesting and makes the story of the bible even more believable.

So if you care about this subject then I hope you enjoyed this blog. As I see it, you can either believe the theories that date back to the 1820's or you can believe documents that were written 1,600 BC. Me personally, I believe written documents over someones theory anyday.

---

So? All this says in Common with what I said is there are no fossils found in that region... It's the truth, I do not understand your point.

---

As I suspected, thank you Bunny, as you can see Drich, your theory is poop.

Please post something that will benefit humanity that is both novel and valid.

Until then please bask in the swagger of the people who refuse to take shit from storytellers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7tOAGY5

I guess this is another opportunity for me to gloat, because you puffed yourself up on info someone else provided you blindly.. Meaning ms. Foo foo didnt provide any reference material verifying what she said was accurate or even close...

Who needs story tellers when you are good with blind faith, and someone who sounds like she knows what she is talking about... how does that differ from story telling again?

---

What evidence would any scientific organization accept for two people having lived for billions of years in a garden paradise with God?

If you can not provide prameters that define the evidence needed then it can be said that the 'scientific process' you repersent is fatally flawed to grasp or accept anything that it currently does not understand to be true. Kinda like those who believed the earth was flat.

Okay, listen: this is why your idea is complete and utter bullshit. You don't even know what evidence you have.

When I ask you "what evidence do you have for this?", your answer should not be "what evidence would you like?" it should be "yes, we have x kind of evidence." Asking me what I'd need just tells me that at the moment, you don't have any evidence, and that any answer I give will just result in you spinning more fabrications out of extant scientific theories.

Which is why I asked you what convinced you: I don't care what you can make up to support your theory, I care about the actual evidence. There must have been something that initially convinced you of this idea, some evidence you didn't have to go handwaving to find, and I was interested in what that was. Asking me what evidence I'd accept is just an invitation for you to go off and return with only that evidence that supports your position, ignoring that which doesn't, and the scientific interpretations of the evidence you did return with, which I don't doubt would not match up with your claim that the garden of eden literally existed.

In short, I've got no interest in hearing you lie about real science so you can pretend your fake science is valid.

True to form, actually getting a straight answer out of you reveals that you believe based on the "holy spirit," which to me means that you just made it up, and then opted to attribute your own imagination to an objective source, as if that means anything at all.

...and me offering you evidence that you can not process is also a true to form exercise in futility. Because no matter what makes sense to me whether it makes sense to you or not, you will dismiss it. Therefore the only sensible recourse is to ask you what you are looking for and help you find it. (In order to break this cycle)

I know your not stupid, and I know you can recognize me turning the tables on you, and I know you know, if you were to participate you would do so without a safety net. (The atheist anthem 'prove it/where's the proof.') so let me bottom line it for you.

Man up, define what your looking for, or cower behind haughty words, insults and thinly veiled self assurances. Either way it make absolutely no difference to me. I've found what I have been looking for. The only question is are you brave enough to look for yourself?