The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm just curious as to how noah dealt with the gargantuan amount of shit those animals must've produced.

[Huggy Bear]

According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't.

Let me guess, you pulled this from the same place you're storing the remnants of last night's dinner.

That was the calculations of Edward Teller the guy that designed the hydrogen bomb.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/septe...t-924.html

His constant attempts to get support for the "Super," as he called it, were seen by many, including Oppenheimer, as a distraction. He became even more of a distraction when he produced equations that showed the possibility that a fission weapon could ignite the world's atmosphere.

[robvalue]

@FAF: He stored it up to feed to the christians later

[Crossless2.0]

I'm just curious as to how noah dealt with the gargantuan amount of shit those animals must've produced.

It was passed down through the generations until 'Moses' supposedly crammed it all into five books. We've been dealing with the stench ever since.

[robvalue]

Wait, we now have a shit schism :o

[h4ym4n]

OK. Well, there's not much more I can say then. I hope your faith makes you happy If you are interested in a frank discussion about it in the future, I'll be happy to oblige.

Yep, he's on par with ken Hamm.

Sad Lek, had hope for you.

[Mr Greene]

Wait, we now have a shit schism :o

The shartnado is nigh! verily it will be a perfect shitstorm and this time it'll really hit the fan!

[Crossless2.0]

Wait, we now have a shit schism :o

It's all it is. It's all it ever was.

[Esquilax]

Let me guess, you pulled this from the same place you're storing the remnants of last night's dinner.

That was the calculations of Edward Teller the guy that designed the hydrogen bomb.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/septe...t-924.html

His constant attempts to get support for the "Super," as he called it, were seen by many, including Oppenheimer, as a distraction. He became even more of a distraction when he produced equations that showed the possibility that a fission weapon could ignite the world's atmosphere.

So, first of all, are you seriously conflating one man's calculations with the entire scientific community? By that logic, every christian is a child molester.

Second of all, possibility is what was discussed here. Nobody was saying that it definitely would happen, but since all science is probabilistic that went without saying for all of us that actually understand how science works. Not that any of this matters, as admitting when you're wrong is not a weakness, it's a strength. It's called "learning." What, would you prefer that whenever science is wrong, it just keeps claiming that it's right? That's what you want?

You want science to act like religion? Like you?

In fact, you want to compare track records? I guess you must, since you said this:

If the Bible backtracked as much as "science" does, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it.

So let's do that: science, even being wrong on occasion, has offered us a more complete mastery of our world than anything else in the history of our planet. It has sent us into space, healed the sick, put the entire world within the grasp of any individual person with air travel, created global communication networks, and increased the human lifespan greatly.

Conversely, religion, where it makes testable claims at all, has never made a correct pronouncement. Not once, in the history of mankind, has a purely religious claim ever been proven true, and in fact, they have all been proven conclusively false. The track record, if you want to compare, has religion at a zero.

If science was utterly wrong as much as religion, I defiantly wouldn't believe in it. But you do, Huggy, and that blatant inconsistency in your position shows, yet again, that what this really is is you, having a presupposition, and scrabbling for arguments that confirm that presupposition without really thinking about them.

But maybe next time you could try not denigrating science on a machine developed by science, over a communication network developed by science, while being alive because of science, you ungrateful ass.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Seriously? you Muppet....
Here is what I said.

meaning "speciation" is just a genetic variation of the same species, that are isolated from breeding with each other.

And your definition.

noun, Biology
1. the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

I think we've isolated the problem. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the words same and new.

You claimed that the species after a speciation event were the same species. That means that they could still interbreed and produce viable offspring capable of reproduction. The definition I provided clearly noted that in the aftermath of a speciation event, there is a new species at hand. It is a different species.

You see, "same" means unchanged; "new" means not previously present. The fact that you have to ignore this distinction gives great insight into the vapidity of your opinion. No one cares what you think the word means. What matters is its meaning in the context of biology. Your inability to understand that has no bearing on the issue, at all. Because scientists, and folks here, don't give a shit about your errors of comprehension -- or incomprehension, really -- insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned.

You're either a really bad liar, or a really stupid person.

Well, I guess that's an excluded-middle fallacy on my part; it's entirely possible that you are an incredibly stupid liar. Yeah, that sounds right.

Later, 'Tater.

---

ROFL!

I have a day off and miss this? Anyone wondering how deep a hole this moron can dig himself into?
The world according to Huggy:

---

---

That's all you've got?

I'm explaining what the Bible Defines as a species. Every seed must bring forth of it's own "KIND". This simply means, as long as fertile offspring are able to be produced, they are the same species.

Which is why it's nonsense to assume the Bible states Noah took two of every single animal in the world aboard the ark, when it clearly states he took two of each species, big difference.

The Bible is not a science textbook.

Dumbfuck.

---

According to "science" a meteor hit the planet and caused an extinction level event, and also according to scientific calculations, the hydrogen bomb was supposed to do the same thing, except it didn't.

Bullshit. The Bible doesn't even define hydrogen bombs. They don't exist.

Muppet.