If there was indeed a creation

as described by literal bible

creationists...

Then we would find the earliest

(deepest) fossil layer with all

known life-forms together.

Then, newer layers would show

progressively less diversity,

accounting for extintions.

The first layer would show

dinosaurs beside humans beside

giant birds beside trilobites.

Of course, there is no such

fossil layer. And the fossil

record does not show decreasing

diversity through time.

It actually shows new forms

in newer layers, progressing

through intermediate forms

until today.

In fact, the fossils support

the evolution view of history!

It's really that simple.

The only problem with that is creationist don't beilieve in the law of superposition. They think the whole geologic column was laid down during the great flood.

I love creationalists.

"Because something can't come from nothing!... except... you know... God."

Theoretically, wouldn't there be thousands of human skeletons along with the remains of the animals who "didn't" make it into the two-by-two lineup?

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

The only problem with that is creationist don't beilieve in the law of superposition. They think the whole geologic column was laid down during the great flood.

Of course, this is utter bullshit without a shred of supporting evidence. Not to mention, there is not enough water on the planet to create a flood massive enough to have such an effect. Even if such a flood did occur, it would still place all fossils in an evenly distributed pattern, rather than one which clearly indicates the passage of time.

But apparently, that is beside the point, because God says so or something.

Actually, the Geologic Column and the strata layers that evolutionists base their entire beliefs on don't even exist.

Anyone who wants a copy of the seminars by Russ Miller who tears Evolution apart at the seams is welcome to have one...

Email me at ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com , and I will send you one.

The entire theory of evolution is based on lies and manipulation...nothing more.

I already know how stupid most of you will think that statement was, so please spare me the insults.

If you really want to know, ask.

Zorro - MasterPython was right.

And so were you...all the fossils WERE laid down at the same time.

Do some studying, and you will find that it's true.

There was a global flood, and all the sediment, strata layers, and Geologic Column do is support that fact.

Consider this a request for these seminars.

As I don't see the need for sending an e-mail first, I'll post my e-mail here if you don't mind (it's in my profile anyway):

omenrust@gmail.com

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Actually, the Geologic Column and the strata layers that evolutionists base their entire beliefs on don't even exist.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html

Ok Rust.

Check ya email...

Shipping is going to be extra to Puerto Rico, isn't it ? *grin*

"The absolute age of rocks is accurately determined by the use of radioisotope dating. It is true that, as Eldredge points out, the relative ages of strata were determined prior to the development of radiometric dating, but radiometric dating has confirmed these relative dates to be correct." http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/2.html#2_5

Yes, imagine that.

The radioisotope dating method just happened to SUPPORT the assertion that their dates were correct all along !

Hmmm...more lies, methinks.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-27-2005).]

Or it could be...

Right.

quote:Originally posted by iridescent_siren:

I love creationalists.



Thanks ! We love atheists, too ! *winks*

Hey, you're profile says you are in AZ...whereabouts ? I am in Flagstaff.

IT'S SNOWING IN APRIL !

God helps us...*wails*

MasterPython, with as unreliable as the dating methods are, can you truly believe that ?

They found a Woolly Mammoth in 1925...they dated one leg to be 20,000 years old, and another leg to be 4 million years old, or something to that effect.

So, of course they went with the "million" year date, since it supported their agenda better.

*pffft*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 04-27-2005).]

So, at first they guessed...and then they dated it exactly at the age they had originally guessed at ?

The impossibility of such a thing is too great to even give a number to.

I know that tests can be flawed and people have agendas on both sides but I would need to see some really good evidence that God is all the Bible says he is before I seriously started believing Genisis was any diferent that all the other creation myths.

Well, I wasn't actually asking that at all.

I am trying to show that Evolutionist's are practicing a religion, and have lied throughout history to pass off their agenda as truth.

What YOU do with that knowledge is up to you...I just don't want people being brainwashed into think that Evolution is the only theory that has any merit, because it has very LITTLE merit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Yes, imagine that.

The radioisotope dating method just happened to SUPPORT the assertion that their dates were correct all along !



These allegations are already dealt with in the link I provided above.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Thanks ! We love atheists, too ! *winks*

Hey, you're profile says you are in AZ...whereabouts ? I am in Flagstaff.

IT'S SNOWING IN APRIL !

God helps us...*wails*

Atheist..? I'm in Sierra Vista.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am trying to show that Evolutionist's are practicing a religion, and have lied throughout history to pass off their agenda as truth.

What YOU do with that knowledge is up to you...I just don't want people being brainwashed into think that Evolution is the only theory that has any merit, because it has very LITTLE merit.

The creationist explanation of the geologic column approaches impossibility. It is simply so far-fetched and without evidence, it is completely laughable.

Regardless of some bad-apple scientists (as there are in any field, including religion), the theory is still vastly supported by all available evidence...

The geologic column is reliable beyond any reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, evolution is in no way religious in nature, as it depends solely on scientific evidence, and not on faith.

Evolution is a clearly demonstrable principle which can be seen at work even in our lifetime, by observing organisms with a much shorter generation than ours. Bacteria and other microorganisms can be observed to change into new species in response to conditions imposed upon them. Dandelions in a frequently-mowed yard take on a ground-hugging stature to avoid the mower blades.

Evolution is the very nature of organisms... or of any self-perpetuating system, for that matter. It is not a religious fabrication, it is one of the fundamental laws of reality.

Hear hear! Obviously the theory of evolution is still only a theory because of fucktard bible-thumpers who are too fucking stupid to wake up and realize that eveything they've been told their whole life is bullshit. I now officially declare the theory of evolution a law. Hip Hip Hoooray!!!

Oh yeah, your god doesn't love you. So there!!!

Creationists believe that fossils were created and placed by the devil to promote heathanism.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Actually, the Geologic Column and the strata layers that evolutionists base their entire beliefs on don't even exist.

Anyone who wants a copy of the seminars by Russ Miller who tears Evolution apart at the seams is welcome to have one...

Email me at ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com , and I will send you one.

The entire theory of evolution is based on lies and manipulation...nothing more.

I already know how stupid most of you will think that statement was, so please spare me the insults.

If you really want to know, ask.

send me that information, I'm always game for some intellectual discourse (or at least, pseudo-intellectual babble that I can laugh at with my hyper intellectual friends while we discuss the ramifications of Proust on modernist writing)

deptstoremook@gmail.com

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

Of course, this is utter bullshit without a shred of supporting evidence. Not to mention, there is not enough water on the planet to create a flood massive enough to have such an effect. Even if such a flood did occur, it would still place all fossils in an evenly distributed pattern, rather than one which clearly indicates the passage of time.

But apparently, that is beside the point, because God says so or something.

What an utter dumbass. Why dont you actually read the Bible so you know HOW to attack us? God had a water vapor shell high in the atmosphere. Thats where the water came from. It says that in the Bible FFS!

Do young people still wear button-down shirts anymore?

What happens when you start out with the wrong button?

Belief that evolution is the origin is the same thing. It looks good until you examine the starting/ending points.... and you can hide the starting point in your pants.

quote:Originally posted by AnalBeeds:

Hear hear! Obviously the theory of evolution is still only a theory because of fucktard bible-thumpers who are too fucking stupid to wake up and realize that eveything they've been told their whole life is bullshit. I now officially declare the theory of evolution a law. Hip Hip Hoooray!!!

"Theory" and "law" are quite close, though theory can include varying levels of certainty.

Evolution is no more "just" a theory than the theory of gravity or electrical theory. It is the law of how any self-perpetuating system susceptible to change will naturally and automatically adjust to influencing factors and pressures. It is not theoretical; it is inevitable.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

What an utter dumbass. Why dont you actually read the Bible so you know HOW to attack us? God had a water vapor shell high in the atmosphere. Thats where the water came from. It says that in the Bible FFS!

And I suppose that the water has since then retreated to this shell high in the atmosphere, and is completely impossible to detect or disprove, just like God.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

Do young people still wear button-down shirts anymore?

What happens when you start out with the wrong button?

Belief that evolution is the origin is the same thing. It looks good until you examine the starting/ending points.... and you can hide the starting point in your pants.

What, pray tell, is the problem with the starting point in evolution?

[This message has been edited by zorro420 (edited 04-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

What, pray tell, is the problem with the starting point in evolution?

you figure it out, since quote:Oh, and in regards to all the questions like, "how can we rely on science, then?"

Simple: technology. Science works, and that's why we're all arguing on the internet. That's why we have cars. That's why we have every fucking thing we craft for our use, especially the newest, neatest, most effective gadgets

You are looking at two different types of science, but equating it as one.

"The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education." Cell Biologist, Dr.David Menton Ph.D.

I have no idea if the Doc is right or not, but his statement is in stark contrast Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, a guideline published by the National Academy of Science. It states that evolution is "the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things."

So if the Doc is wrong, what has the (propagandist) teaching and "understanding" of evolution contributed? Other than marketing schmuck (shmok) chamois to wax your "newest, neatest, most effective gadgets".

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.David+Menton+Ph.D

Cell biologist and medical researcher

who seems to mostly just push

creationist bullshit.

Home-school yer kids so you can

learn em up right, yeppers!

If all the fossils were made

at once, in the flood, from

living forms...

Do you realize how much stuff

there was at the same time?

There would have been no room!

So the people were standing on

dinosaurs heads, while foot-long

insects and pterodactyls filled

the sky?

Where did the dirt the first trees

grew in come from?

Why weren't ground sloths allowed

on Noah's boat? Or small vegetarian

dinosaurs? But he took scorpions

and rattlesnakes!

There are all kinds of silly implications.

quote:Originally posted by AnalBeeds:

Hear hear! Obviously the theory of evolution is still only a theory because of fucktard bible-thumpers who are too fucking stupid to wake up and realize that eveything they've been told their whole life is bullshit. I now officially declare the theory of evolution a law. Hip Hip Hoooray!!!

And you're too bigoted to realize how assanine your post just made you out to be !

"Everything we've been taught our whole lives" ?!

Do you even know any Christians ?

I certainly didn't grow up in a church.

Did you Xtreem ? What about you, Argon ? Any other Christians here end up being Christian as a result of a lifetime of brainwashing ?

No ?

Hmmmm...

quote:Originally posted by mathematics88:

Creationists believe that fossils were created and placed by the devil to promote heathanism.

Ummm..nnnooo.

We don't.

Read a Bible sometime...then maybe you can actually have a POINT when you are trying to refute it.

quote:Originally posted by deptstoremook:

send me that information, I'm always game for some intellectual discourse (or at least, pseudo-intellectual babble that I can laugh at with my hyper intellectual friends while we discuss the ramifications of Proust on modernist writing)

deptstoremook@gmail.com

Will do, Mook.

Hehe...both you and Rust use the same mail server.

Send me an email to me with your address, please.

ladyofthemyst@hotmail.com

quote:Originally posted by zorro420:

What, pray tell, is the problem with the starting point in evolution?

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

you figure it out, since

That makes no sense, and you haven't answered the question.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You are looking at two different types of science, but equating it as one.

I'm talking about the scientific method in general, of which there is only one, which applies to all the sciences. Furthermore, there are not multiple sciences, but rather delineations drawn. All the sciences relate to one another; you'd know that if you paid any attention in science class. Biology operates on chemistry, chemistry operates on physics.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

"The fact is that though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education." Cell Biologist, Dr.David Menton Ph.D.

I have no idea if the Doc is right or not, but his statement is in stark contrast Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, a guideline published by the National Academy of Science. It states that evolution is "the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things."

Hmmm, one doctor versus the entire National Academy of Science. I am going to venture to guess that the National Academy, composed of many doctors, has a more balanced view than a single doctor.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

So if the Doc is wrong, what has the (propagandist) teaching and "understanding" of evolution contributed? Other than marketing schmuck (shmok) chamois to wax your "newest, neatest, most effective gadgets".

What has the understanding (no quotes) of evolution contributed? How about a fundamental driving principle for the functioning of organisms? Or did those words have too many syllables for you?

Evolution has nothing to do with how my Palm Pilot works, however. Or my Toyota, or my refrigerator, or my stereo, or my television. However, they were all devised with the same scientific method that discovered the undeniable principle of evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Dr.David+Menton+Ph.D

Cell biologist and medical researcher

who seems to mostly just push

creationist bullshit.

Home-school yer kids so you can

learn em up right, yeppers!

So, do you have a point?

In the first place, i cliked the link and checked out every link on the first two pages.. nothing that refutes him.

Secondly, i said, "i have no idea if the Doc is right or not", but i asked, "if the Doc is wrong, what has the (propagandist) teaching and "understanding" of evolution contributed?".

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Did you Xtreem ? What about you, Argon ? Any other Christians here end up being Christian as a result of a lifetime of brainwashing ?

I can not speak for other Christians reguarding their path in life.

To be totally honest, i can not say for certain that i did not start out with "brainwashing" so to speak.

To be totally honest, i did grow up, not IN a church, but in a God loving family.

But also, to be totally honest, my faith may have started out from being raised this way. But it has been weighed and measured (most times to be found wanting); it has been refined and purified like silver. It is a part of me, more so than any part of my body.

My faith was not only given me by God, but He has cultivated and pruned it and is growing it. I know that He is not even close to finishing His Work. He shows me my faith each and every day.. and often i (metaphorically) close my eyes, because my flesh just wants to stay in the comfort of the familiar, and in the denial and rebellion of God. Then He shows me again, and again.

The non-believers think that we are trying to convert them. They dont realize that we cant, that it isnt in our authority.

What do we gain then? Power? Money?-- Crowns in Heaven.. well, maybe, but i for one know so little about the Crowns, that at present, they mean next to nothing to me.

I for one, wish only that they know The LORD with atleast as much of their being as i know The LORD.

Faith is given by The Father.

If they convert, it is the work of The Holy Spirit.

Salvation is given by The Son, only if they repent and accept the gift of Grace.

quote:Originally posted by mathematics88:

Creationists believe that fossils were created and placed by the devil to promote heathanism.

They used to believe that fossils were just God showing us how great is is. Before they decided to believe that they were plants and animals killed durring the great flood.

Xtreem, growing up in a God loving family isn't brainwashing...or at least not in the context with which I was using that terminology.

I was referring more to the false idealogy that we were all forced to go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible daily.

I have met very few Christians that have a background like that, and it is such crap to say that we are all just brainwashed sheep.

Every person is different, and came to their beliefs in different ways. It is such an unfair blanket statement to insinuate that every Christian came to their faith this way...especially since that is supposed to mean that we are all just stupid, and easily influenced.

That was my point.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Xtreem, growing up in a God loving family isn't brainwashing...or at least not in the context with which I was using that terminology.

I was referring more to the false idealogy that we were all forced to go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible daily.

I have met very few Christians that have a background like that, and it is such crap to say that we are all just brainwashed sheep.

Every person is different, and came to their beliefs in different ways. It is such an unfair blanket statement to insinuate that every Christian came to their faith this way...especially since that is supposed to mean that we are all just stupid, and easily influenced.

That was my point.



It is brainwashing, to an extent. Parents teach their kids that there is a god. It doesn't matter a bit how often the family attends church, or how they practice their faith. Kids tend to accept as truth what their parents teach them, whether or not the teachings are accurate.What children are taught at an early age will affect their outlook on life.

QUOTE Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Xtreem, growing up in a God loving family isn't brainwashing...or at least not in the context with which I was using that terminology.

I did understand what you meant, but i was trying to point out that one can not know it is brainwashing from the inside looking out.

I've been waiting for someone to bring this up.. so thank you.

The same is also of evolutionary teaching. It is brainwashing also. And from the inside, it is just as easy to not realize.

I was referring more to the false idealogy that we were all forced to go to church every Sunday, and read the Bible daily.

That is why i started out with this: "I can not speak for other Christians reguarding their path in life"

I have met very few Christians that have a background like that, and it is such crap to say that we are all just brainwashed sheep.

I agree. There comes a time in most Christians lives that they have to decide for themselves if they truely believe. And with the bombardments of the world, it's pretty amazing how God keeps the faithful to Him.

Every person is different, and came to their beliefs in different ways. It is such an unfair blanket statement to insinuate that every Christian came to their faith this way...especially since that is supposed to mean that we are all just stupid, and easily influenced.

It used to bother me too, but now i take some pride when i get called "brainwashed", "sheep", or even "stupid". Not because of those words, but because Christ suffered for me, and they wouldnt be attacking this way, if it were not for/because of Christ.

That was my point. /QUOTE

And a very good one. Thank you again.

Truckfxr, I agree, to an extent. I am not saying that the way we are raised has nothing to do with the outcome of our personality.

What I am saying is that it is a false perception to believe that Christians are all raised that way. Almost every Christian I know wasn't raised in a Christian home.

There is also a point in everyone's life, as Xtreem just mentioned, where you have to decide for yourself. Just being raised in a home that enforces a certain denomination doesn't mean that it is genuine in your own heart.

Xtreem, thanks for clarifying.

We always seem to be saying the same thing, just differently.

As profound as that was, I am still gonna go have a brownie on our account.

*LOL*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What I am saying is that it is a false perception to believe that Christians are all raised that way. Almost every Christian I know wasn't raised in a Christian home.



Maybe it's genetic?

BAAA BAAAA (lamb noise)

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Yeah.

That's it.

Someone give this genius an award !

Ny1 herd of the 40 million year old cowboy boot? And no, I am not related to some ape.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Ny1 herd of the 40 million year old cowboy boot? And no, I am not related to some ape.

no, but i have heard of a fossilized cowboy hat.

while i was looking for a picture and article of the cowboy hat (which i have seen at an AiG conference), i came across this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/flour.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i1/fossil.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/stone_bears.asp



and ok, it was not a cowboy hat, it was a bowler hat(and not fossilized, but petrified):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/tarawera.asp

or maybe it was a miner's hat:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp



Now to try to bring this post alittle back on topic. These were things that we know to have been made in well under millions of years. And although most of them (to include others that i didnt post) were not found in strata, i am wondering why there were no radiometric datings done on any of these, for the simple reason of "testing" radiometric dating. To be objective, it is possible that there were datings done on these, but the results were inconclusive or that they came up with very young ages. It is also possible that there were no datings done, due to the cost and the reasoning that there would be no point. Any thoughts from anyone?

geologic column, does it exist?

I only read a very small portion of this, but:

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

geologic column, does it exist?

I only read a very small portion of this, but:

http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp



Refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Refuted here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/

just wondering Rust, would there be any significance to the "last updated" at the top of each article?

In the case of my article, I assume it has to do with the response by Woodmorappe (the author of the article you provided) to the article, which they then added.

"Response by Woodmorappe

Woodmorappe criticizes this work for using the Robertson's Group Book. He writes:

But where does Morton get his information? He cites as his source the work of the Robertson Group, a London-based oil-consulting company. I have been unable to secure a copy of this work, as it is not listed in either WorldCat or GEOREF. Thus I cannot comment on the accuracy of this source of information, nor discern whether or not its portrayal of sedimentary basins is overly schematic. Evidently, Morton is citing a proprietary source not subject to publiciscrutiny.

This book is not proprietary. It is for sale. They would be delighted to sell Woodmorappe a copy. It is a work that most oil companies use in international exploration. So, I would say to Woodmorappe, find a friend in an oil company and get that friend to show him the book.

I want to add one more thing to my response to this criticism. If you really want to find the experts in geology (especially in the areas in which oil and gas is found) you MUST go to the oil industry. We spend millions of dollars a year gathering data. While my source, the Stratigraphic Database of Major Sedimentary Basins of the World, is the work of a worldwide consulting group, it is, therefore the best thing that is available anywhere on the entire geologic column. I don't think there is anything in the public domain literature like it. And I might add, I have seen professors do the same things with their work--sell it to industry through consortiums. Such data is never published in the referreed journals--it is too valuable."

--

Or maybe some grammatical errors...

Why do you ask? Your article was originally published in 1999, the one I provided was published in 2001.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-01-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Why do you ask? Your article was originally published in 1999, the one I provided was published in 2001.



The 2001 article was last updated 2001, and the 1999 article was last updated 2003. Not that it nessecarily matters. I asked simply out of laziness. I read very little of woodmorappes' article and only clicked your link to put it in bookmarks. Was up late last night, and although i didnt drink, i feel hungover. i have no ambition today and am waiting for a games tourny to start that my wife asked me to join (dont really want to do that either, but i do like doing stuff with my wife).

For all we know it could have been a grammatical mistake that was pointed out to the website in 2003.

Since there is absolutely nothing that I can see in the article you provided which would imply an update in the argument itself, or a counter-argument to the article I provided, then the only logical conclusion is that it was syntactical, grammatical, and/or errors in the sources, that they corrected.

Especially when one notes that it is extremely common for web links to become obsolete, and that your article contains numerous such links.

ta da... Rust, i finally finished reading both articles. Would you (or anyone) please do me a favor? The next time i make statements about geology, please throw rocks at my head, and remind me that rocks are boring.

As much as i hate to say this, i have to conceed about the geologic column. The presence of shale and burrows, to me (as a non-geologist) is definitely a difficulty.

Rust, unless i happen on better info, i do not plan on debating the column again... you win this one, hands down.

how come i posted; it put this topic at the top of the list; my post did not show up in the topic?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

MasterPython, with as unreliable as the dating methods are, can you truly believe that ?

They found a Woolly Mammoth in 1925...they dated one leg to be 20,000 years old, and another leg to be 4 million years old, or something to that effect.

So, of course they went with the "million" year date, since it supported their agenda better.

*pffft*



I'd just like to point out that i ahve read some on the case and from what I remember they dated the different legs using different methods and chose the date from the msot accurate method at the time, while later calibration has shown it to be fairly accurate while the other (ironically enough, carbon-14) was relegated only to item's that are found within strata of about 9,000 years old to about 50,000. Note verything is a conspiracy to destroy your faith, sometimes science can just be inaccurate. In these circumstances, the best guess is adopted until evidence proves otherwise.

Why not just ask the wayback machine. That site as viewed in 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20011217161923/http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

quote:Originally posted by AnalBeeds:

Hear hear! Obviously the theory of evolution is still only a theory because of fucktard bible-thumpers who are too fucking stupid to wake up and realize that eveything they've been told their whole life is bullshit. I now officially declare the theory of evolution a law. Hip Hip Hoooray!!!

I'm an atheist, and an "evolutionist".

Evolution will NEVER be a law.

Never, ever, ever.

We are never going to get to

1+1=2 cetainty about exactly how it all works.

The theory will most certainly be improved, but will never be a law.

And yeah, I know it was a joke, but I just thought I ought to say this anyway.

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

What an utter dumbass. Why dont you actually read the Bible so you know HOW to attack us? God had a water vapor shell high in the atmosphere. Thats where the water came from. It says that in the Bible FFS!

Might have been asked...

but by what peculiar property of physics was this water vapour canopy suspended in the air?

And also, what about the effects of such a canopy on the conditions of earth, most specifically, global warming.