Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 214:
Line 214: + +
Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real (view source)
Revision as of 21:22, November 10, 2009
, 21:22, November 10, 2009→Is this debate necessary?
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
:If archaeological and geological evidence shows something to be hypothetically impossible then divine intervention can be given as the solution, however if the evidence shows that something never happened then it never happened. This is the point of this debate, without physical corroboration the bible is about as historically realistic as the lord of the rings. How many serious political and social decisions are made according to what's written in the lord of the rings? conversely how many are made because of what's written in the bible? This is why this debate is necessary. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 15:41, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
::This "debate" happens here all the time because there's always one or two individuals who want to force the issue. He listed questions above which were answered previously; in one case three times. His pattern indicates someone who refuses to listen, totally contradicting the "open mindedness" that his side claims to have a market on. And now he's bringing up dendrochronology? Since I already know the answer to that one, I doubt it will be something he'll listen to. So, since he's bringing up the constant ''argumentum ad infinitum'' - with some egotistical pressure, I might add - I'm going to have to declare his presence here at an end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:02, 10 November 2009 (EST)
Tell you what, since he's here to demand that we accept his viewpoint, I'm going to make a demand of my own. Jamesmackenzie, since you came to this particular page with the intention of pushing your opinion that Noah's Ark did not exist, I'm going to call you on it. According to the Bible, Genesis 8, the ark rested in ''the mountains of Ararat''. You, Jamesmackenzie, are going to scour the area once known as the Kingdom of Urartu, which now is occupied by eastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran, and I don't care how you do it. You can use Google-Earth or take a jet to do some hiking, but you are going to go over every square foot of that ground ''before you carry on with your opinion in this website''. That is the only way I will accept from you the proof needed that the ark doesn't exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:22, 10 November 2009 (EST)