Dear God, Eve what have you done?

[Ryantology]

Because if you do not have an idea of what you are looking for then how will you know when it is presented. Would you help someone look for a lost dog if that person can not describe the dog? Not unless your an idiot. If you can not tell me what your dog looks like then I can't help you find it.

You suck at metaphors. I don't. Here's a better one:

We meet on the street. You say to me "isn't my dog awesome?". I see nothing but a leash dragging on the pavement. I ask "what dog?". You shake the collar and insist that not only is the dog standing right there next to you, but that I'm refusing to accept that there's a dog standing right next to you. When I ask you to prove to me that there's a dog standing next to you, you ask me to describe the dog.

Given that I have no idea how to materially-describe a being that, by all appearances, exists only in your head, it's up to you to show me what you do have and then I'll decide whether that's enough to convince me.

The Garden needed an attendant according to Gen 2 (adam) The addendant is gone so too is the lush green garden. Flaming sword signifies heat so we are looking for some place hot, we know where 2 of the four rivers mentioned are (iraq) What is a massive tract of land in iraq that is very hot that could have facilitated this garden? the desert.

Way to not answer the question at all.

So what evidence that there was a garden of eden?

The known locations of 2 of the 4 rivers mentioned in genesis. the desert sands keeping anyone from entering it. the vast oil fields located under the desert that show there was one a tremoundous thriving biological source for all of this oil. The lack of any fosslisized remains in this area.

(Get a map and do some research before you give me a chance to make you look foolish. I did not say in dinosaurs were not found in iraq period. I said dinsaurs remains were never found in the purposed garden area.)

What do dinosaurs have to do with anything? The fossil fuels we use are, at best, a fraction of a percent dinosaur. The overwhelming majority of it comes from plant matter, which makes up a far larger total biomass.

Actually He first died the very day He ate the forbidden fruit, or rather his immortality ended that day. He began a new life when he left the garden.

Most of the translations have it as all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. If he was immortal and lived for billions of years before that, then 930 years does not account for "all the days". But, I guess you know more than the authors of the Bible.

I knew you'd be dishonest and redefine 'death' in order to avoid conceding the point, but it's still disappointing.

[Drich]

Well erma gerd

It's seems as you don't know what this evidence doesn't look like, I've obviously stated earlier that I have no clue WHAT it looks like because it's never been presented in front of my face. All I was asking was for you was to apply your "critical thinking" brain and show me the evidence that already had for this your claim, not another claim. But you obviously didn't have evidence nor could you find evidence, could you Drich? Well assuming you were a rational human being who could deduce things correctly, you would have deduced the evidence I wanted see regarding the validation of your claim. (that Adam's children reflected the evolutionary processes of man) this could be evidence such as fossil records,

You did not read or understand the post I wrote on the current location of eden did you?

One of the reason we look to that area as Eden is because no fossiles have been found there. without the existance of fossiles in a given region how is one to produce them?

or holy shit, no really, fossilized fecal matter of these people that could serve as evidence for their existence which would give lea way to your theory.

Actually no it wouldn't because anyone with 1/2 a brain would ask: How do you know this was Adam or eve's poop?

Or best of all, some genetic evidence would be FAN-FUCKING-TASTIC. But wait, you don't know what these look like do you Drich.

... and what would you compare that to?

If Adam and eve were genetically identical to 'ape man' then how is one able to distinguish between adam or Eve from any other souless homo sapeian?

Or can you not apply your brain and say "hey this form of evidence is exactly what I need to validate my theory"!

kinda like the massive oil feilds in Iraq and the lack of fossiles in that area?

Which by the way is exactly what any person does who is hot and horny over their "flawless" theory.

No this is what atheist do. I and people like me know what truth is and know you all have been programmed to disregaurd it. When confronted with absolute truth you people abandon the conversation or by faith and without cause dismiss what is said. So to avoid this I and people like me must approach the truth slowly with you. in this way we are able to address one element at a time. By doing this and not destroying your theory outright you are force to contend and defend what you believe in all directions. Realizing at some point you will abandon the conversation, but by making my arguements simple enough to seemingly argue against, we get to go much deeper into the conversation that we would if I simply just beat you over your head with my 'proof.'

In this instance you called for proof. I made you define proof. when you did, I showed you your request for this 'specific proof' was not a viable request for this region of the world. This would have one verify and seek something obtainable if the conversation were to go on.

I mean shit Drich, you have one hell of a theory here that obviously seems to work because nobody here can argue with it. It has super high chances of being bullet-proof. So please do humanity a favor and take your theory to conferences among hundreds of the worlds most revered scholars because after all you do hold the theory that explains Human origins, right down to the last grain of salt.

Actually funny you should mention it. there are a few who have taken my initial idea and are currently working on fortifying it. I have been told there has been a paper written on it. who knows in a few years you may Richard Dawkins falling before it in some formal debate.

Oh! And do please don't forget your evidence. You will need that if you are going to go far with this superb and awesome theory of yours.

all anyone has to do is define what it is he or she is looking for and I can help them find it.

---

In order to interpret data one must first be able to identify it. I am simply asking you to provide parameters you need to identify data.

And I told you: whatever convinced you, if you're a rational being and approaching this honestly, would be sufficient to convince me.

But you're not being rational about this, I suspect. In fact, I have almost no doubt that what actually convinced you was that you wanted to square a literal interpretation of the bible with known scientific facts, and so you invented desperately until such a thing existed.

That's why you're so unwilling to tell us what evidence convinced you. If that's not the case, what is it that's stopping you?

The Holy Spirit convinced me, then He went on to help me find all sorts of 'coincidental truths' that support the truth of creation. The coincidental truths in of themselves can be dismissed, and I believe that is the point. Fore God is not looking to convert people through creation, just prevent people from falling from faith through evolution.

Some of those truths have been mentioned in the evolution thread I did, and others were left in response to C.Dreaming's post.

---

Yeah but on the other hand men have to SHAVE! So I don't know why you girls are always complaining!

[ducks]...

Y-you poor whittled thwings, havin to shave those stubbly little faces? D'awwww
Go shave or wax your legs, toes, fingers, arms, under arms, eyebrows, and (for some) upper lipstick and ears and private parts, then get back to me about complaining. Mmk?

Nora.. what did the doctor say?

---

Drich, your timeline doesn't match up with reality. Oil doesn't form from biological matter in just 6k years nor was the sand atop it accumulated in such little amounts of time. What's more is you haven't provided any evidence for a worldwide flood even if it happened as you claim it did. What's more, scientists have already debunked your version of a flood already. The world would not have survived as it is now, with a flood like that. Also, I merely need to go to the local fossil shop to see the extent of oceanic fossils sitting atop the rocky mountains, and I guarantee those formed over more than a year . I posted the Smithsonian link because even to a layman such as myself, you really can't mistake the biological, archaeological, and DNA evidence that shows just how mankind came to form itself. As for having souls, well, arguments without evidence are just as easily discarded as they are made up. I could say that all humans have memories of their ancestors stored within them but unless I have PROOF for such a claim, why would I expect you to believe me?
I on the other hand, have yet to see anything but bare assertions from you on this matter and I'm disappointed, considering it was once a pivotal reason for me to drop my faitg--because the Bible has been tried and found in such critical error, even when its tested out based upon what it asserts. Do you really think that all the DNA evidence showing exactly where humanity evolved from, supports in any way a garden full of magically poofed human beings with souls who then mated with monkeymen? I mean, really?

Bunny,

The garden exist for millions if not billions or even trillions of years before the exile. The exile is what happened 6000 years ago.

[Esquilax]

One of the reason we look to that area as Eden is because no fossiles have been found there. without the existance of fossiles in a given region how is one to produce them?

No fossils have ever been found in my backyard either. Does that mean my backyard is Eden, or does it mean that the formation of fossils is a rare occurrence?

Jesus, you are reaching now.

If Adam and eve were genetically identical to 'ape man' then how is one able to distinguish between adam or Eve from any other souless homo sapeian?

Yeah, how did you distinguish between the two when you formulated your idea?

No this is what atheist do. I and people like me know what truth is and know you all have been programmed to disregaurd it. When confronted with absolute truth you people abandon the conversation or by faith and without cause dismiss what is said. So to avoid this I and people like me must approach the truth slowly with you. in this way we are able to address one element at a time. By doing this and not destroying your theory outright you are force to contend and defend what you believe in all directions. Realizing at some point you will abandon the conversation, but by making my arguements simple enough to seemingly argue against, we get to go much deeper into the conversation that we would if I simply just beat you over your head with my 'proof.'

Motherfucker, you haven't provided anything yet, and you won't even tell us what convinced you that this was true. Let's not pretend that your little theory (colloquial usage, not scientific, because so far you've presented nothing that could be considered falsifiable) is watertight yet, huh?

In this instance you called for proof. I made you define proof. when you did, I showed you your request for this 'specific proof' was not a viable request for this region of the world. This would have one verify and seek something obtainable if the conversation were to go on.

So why not provide my proof? I define it as what convinced you that this was true; if you're as rational and equipped with the truth as you think you are, that proof will easily convince me too.

You haven't done it yet: why not?

Actually funny you should mention it. there are a few who have taken my initial idea and are currently working on fortifying it. I have been told there has been a paper written on it. who knows in a few years you may Richard Dawkins falling before it in some formal debate.

Was the paper published in a mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journal, or just Dreamland Monthly?

The Holy Spirit convinced me, then He went on to help me find all sorts of 'coincidental truths' that support the truth of creation.

Oh okay, you made it up. Gotcha.

Tell me, what scientific organization accepts "holy spirit" as evidence?

[Drich]

You suck at metaphors. I don't. Here's a better one:

when one encounters a weak or failed metaphore one disassembles it and explains why it is not valid, not provide another one. Here is an example:

We meet on the street. You say to me "isn't my dog awesome?". I see nothing but a leash dragging on the pavement. I ask "what dog?". You shake the collar and insist that not only is the dog standing right there next to you, but that I'm refusing to accept that there's a dog standing right next to you. When I ask you to prove to me that there's a dog standing next to you, you ask me to describe the dog.

You metaphore centers around the idea that based on your experience god is not real hence the missing dog. this has nothing to do with the point I was making. In that if you do not know what you yourself are looking for then how is it am i expected to help you find it?

In my metaphore the dog is the evidence or process of evaluation you need to accept God. not God Himself. Why? because you would/do not except God Himself, you are slaves to what you believe to be the 'proof' process. Therefore in order to find God we must first find your missing dog. However in order to do that you must be able to describe him.

What do dinosaurs have to do with anything?

If the Garden was set a part from the rest of the world (not made to go through the evolutionary process) a perserve that God made on the 3rd day to reflect the state of the world at the time of the fall 6000 years ago, there would be no dinosaurs, unless they existed 6000 years ago. (which per the book of Job is a possiablity in one form or another.)

The fossil fuels we use are, at best, a fraction of a percent dinosaur. The overwhelming majority of it comes from plant matter, which makes up a far larger total biomass.

which would be consistant with what i have said. The Existance of the Garden that lasted for billions of years in that area would be a very very large long lasting source of plant bio matter.

Most of the translations have it as all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years. If he was immortal and lived for billions of years before that, then 930 years does not account for "all the days". But, I guess you know more than the authors of the Bible.

All translations source material describe Adam's life pre fall as: חַי chay which means life.

The 930 years adam lived is חָיַי chayay or 'restored life.'

So prefall God gave Adam life, we can confidently assume adam ate from the tree of life, which made Him immortal per Genesis 3.

Then at the fall Adam ate from the tree of knoweledge, and per the Promise of God Adam died that day, or rather the immortal Adam died that day. God then restored Adam to life, per the use of the word Chayay. It is to this Chayay that Adam live another 930 years.

I knew you'd be dishonest and redefine 'death' in order to avoid conceding the point, but it's still disappointing.

---

No fossils have ever been found in my backyard either. Does that mean my backyard is Eden, or does it mean that the formation of fossils is a rare occurrence?

We are not talking about your back yard we are talking about an area the size of 2/3rds of North America that shows evidence of a lush plant life in that region for a very long long time. They even found fossils in antartica, this is the only region on earth that fossils have not been found.
What other land mass on this planet of that size is without fossilized remains?

Yeah, how did you distinguish between the two when you formulated your idea?

The bible says Man/Adam in the garden was made a living Spirit. or rather made in the image of God.

So why not provide my proof? I define it as what convinced you that this was true; if you're as rational and equipped with the truth as you think you are, that proof will easily convince me too.

You haven't done it yet: why not?

Again I have but because you are looking for something else you appearently have not recognized it, therefore what I have as proof is not something you understand to be 'proof.' therefore I need the specifics of what you consider to be proof.

Was the paper published in a mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journal, or just Dreamland Monthly?

I didn't ask, it was enough for me to have been told a revised version had been published.

Tell me, what scientific organization accepts "holy spirit" as evidence?

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.

[Belac Enrobso]

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.

[Mystical]

So what evidence that there was a garden of eden?

The known locations of 2 of the 4 rivers mentioned in genesis. the desert sands keeping anyone from entering it. the vast oil fields located under the desert that show there was one a tremoundous thriving biological source for all of this oil. The lack of any fosslisized remains in this area. (Get a map and do some research before you give me a chance to make you look foolish. I did not say in dinosaurs were not found in iraq period. I said dinsaurs remains were never found in the purposed garden area.)

Crude oil is formed from the decayed remnants of aquatic plants and animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. Large portions of the modern day Middle East were once submerged under a large, now non-existent sea called the Tethys Sea.

This sea eventually disappeared, sealing large deposits of organic matter under a salty crust. Over the eons, this crust was in turn covered by layer upon layer of sediment. As the sediment was compressed under the increasing weight of the layers above, it hardened into limestone. About 15 million years ago, the shifting of tectonic plates of the region formed large, underground fissures. As the organic matter migrated through the layers of limestone, much of it seeped into these fissures.

These deposits of organic matter became crude oil.



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

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.

---

[Belac Enrobso]

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=c7tOAGY59uQ

[Mystical]

*shudders

I wouldn't kiss that guy if he was the prince of persia

[Esquilax]

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.

[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?