- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 23 2010,22:53) Then there was Ed the talking horse. Stuart
Hi Stuart,Did you click on that link I provided for you?
Rev.1911 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he(HolySpirit) that sat upon
him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.God bless
Ed JQuote (Stu @ Mar. 23 2010,22:37) Is that an answer? Have there ever been talking snakes and/or donkeys, t8?
Ask a zoologist if animals talk?Their answer is probably the same as mine.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2010,23:12) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 23 2010,22:37) Is that an answer? Have there ever been talking snakes and/or donkeys, t8?
Ask a zoologist if animals talk?Their answer is probably the same as mine.
Are you being obtuse because you do not have an answer?Numbers 22:28
Genesis 3:1
Never mind the zoologist, t8. What do you believe?
Stuart
Quote (Ed J @ Mar. 23 2010,15:43) Hi Stuart, Here is more PROOF of God's existence (as there is much) for you Stuart… Click Here
You keep saying there is no Proof, but this is FALSE, spoken on your part in ignorance.
Prob.18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.
Prov:25:2: It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.God bless
Ed J
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
For StuartStuart, dear
If by your proclamation as you yourself being a type of ape, then you are creating a moot point in regards if animals can talk, are you not?
Quote (TimothyVI @ Mar. 23 2010,22:50) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 23 2010,22:37) Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2010,20:35) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:21) So back to the question, are you denying that there was a talking snake and a talking donkey?
Ask a zoologist if animals talk?
After all, you are only interested in physical science.
Is that an answer? Have there ever been talking snakes and/or donkeys, t8?Stuart
I saw Francis the talking mule with my own eyes.
It must be true.Tim
Tim,I have heard a few 'donkey's' talk myself.
Quote (princess of the king @ Mar. 26 2010,22:37) Stuart, dear If by your proclamation as you yourself being a type of ape, then you are creating a moot point in regards if animals can talk, are you not?
It was t8 who mentioned “talking animals”. I asked about a snake and a donkey, and I mentioned a horse. No apes involved in that!And I wrote this:
I am neither a donkey nor a snake, although I am a talking ape…
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2010,17:35) Are you being obtuse because you do not have an answer?
I believe that animals talk or communicate. I haven't been able to interpret their language up till now, but I can sometimes understand their body language. Like when I am eating a slightly charcoaled sausy at a barbie and a dog stands their drooling as I eat. I take it that the dog is hungry. But when he barks, I do not have an exact interpretation, but I could probably have a good guess.I believe that animals talk, they certainly communicate.
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 27 2010,06:50) I am neither a donkey nor a snake, although I am a talking ape…
Actually according to your belief you could be considered a slimy ass ape. Let me explain so that you do not think I am being rude.A donkey is an ass, and a snake is slimy (slithery).
According to Evolution, there must be a common ancestor for apes, donkeys, and apes, and others. So wouldn't that make you a relation of this common ancestor according to your Evolution belief/religion?
I also bet that snakes and donkeys have more common code with humans than daffodils which have about one-third common code. So you may have more in common with snakes and donkeys by reason of your own belief in Evolution than you would like to admit.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2010,09:34) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2010,17:35) Are you being obtuse because you do not have an answer?
I believe that animals talk or communicate. I haven't been able to interpret their language up till now, but I can sometimes understand their body language. Like when I am eating a slightly charcoaled sausy at a barbie and a dog stands their drooling as I eat. I take it that the dog is hungry. But when he barks, I do not have an exact interpretation, but I could probably have a good guess.I believe that animals talk, they certainly communicate.
Did a snake and / or a donkey ever talk to a human in the human's own language, t8?That is the only question I have ever asked on the subject. That is what your scripture apparently claims.
All all these red herrings a dodge?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 27 2010,09:53) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 27 2010,06:50) I am neither a donkey nor a snake, although I am a talking ape…
Actually according to your belief you could be considered a slimy ass ape. Let me explain so that you do not think I am being rude.A donkey is an ass, and a snake is slimy (slithery).
According to Evolution, there must be a common ancestor for apes, donkeys, and apes, and others. So wouldn't that make you a relation of this common ancestor according to your Evolution belief/religion?
I also bet that snakes and donkeys have more common code with humans than daffodils which have about one-third common code. So you may have more in common with snakes and donkeys by reason of your own belief in Evolution than you would like to admit.
Pathetic.And you went back and edited it, too.
Stunningly banal.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 27 2010,21:53) Did a snake and / or a donkey ever talk to a human in the human's own language, t8?
Not sure if that happened.Show me a scripture and I will comment gladly. I take it that you are talking about scripture?
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 27 2010,21:55) Pathetic. And you went back and edited it, too.
Stunningly banal.
Stuart
So what. It was edited a good 12 hours or so before you posted. So there was no craftiness involved. Just corrections. Nothing wrong with the edit function if it is used as intended.Q: Did the fragments of a skull and jawbone from a gravel pit make men believe that it was an unknown form of early man?
A: Yes, in actual fact it was a hoax that lasted more than 40 years.
Imagine all the Evolutionists that believed that one. I can just imagine the debates over this. Might sound similar to what evolutionists say today with other bones and imagined ancestors of man that their faith is built on.
The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence.
Source: WikipediaSounds like today. Men have a theory and they look for whatever will fit the evidence. In a word of many things, there will be evidence for any theory if you try hard enough.
Quote (t8 @ April 10 2010,01:22) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 27 2010,21:55) Pathetic. And you went back and edited it, too.
Stunningly banal.
Stuart
So what. It was edited a good 12 hours or so before you posted. So there was no craftiness involved. Just corrections. Nothing wrong with the edit function if it is used as intended.
What I mean is, you thought about it and came back and that was still the best you could do, having thought about it!Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 10 2010,01:33) Q: Did the fragments of a skull and jawbone from a gravel pit make men believe that it was an unknown form of early man? A: Yes, in actual fact it was a hoax that lasted more than 40 years.
Imagine all the Evolutionists that believed that one. I can just imagine the debates over this. Might sound similar to what evolutionists say today with other bones and imagined ancestors of man that their faith is built on.
The Piltdown man hoax had succeeded so well because at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment had believed that the large modern brain had preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery had provided exactly that evidence.
Source: WikipediaSounds like today. Men have a theory and they look for whatever will fit the evidence. In a word of many things, there will be evidence for any theory if you try hard enough.
You really need to be more careful t8. The Piltdown hoax is a case where at the time of its “discovery” some biologists used Darwin's theory to predict that the find would turn out be a hoax.They were shown to be right when the techniques had been developed to determine that it was such.
Real, falsifiable scientific theories make predictions. This one showed that Darwin was right.
Better luck next time, t8, but thanks for playing.
Stuart
Quote Men have a theory and they look for whatever will fit the evidence. In a word of many things, there will be evidence for any theory if you try hard enough. It seems more often the evidence is “cherry picked” to fit theories, of course evolutionists are quick to point at creationist as bending the facts to fit our beliefs, which is true at times, but I've found evolutionist to be even worst about it.
My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ April 10 2010,12:31) Quote Men have a theory and they look for whatever will fit the evidence. In a word of many things, there will be evidence for any theory if you try hard enough. It seems more often the evidence is “cherry picked” to fit theories, of course evolutionists are quick to point at creationist as bending the facts to fit our beliefs, which is true at times, but I've found evolutionist to be even worst about it.
My opinion – Wm
You are welcome to show us the evidence that the theory of natural selection is wrong. Science says put up or shut up. It is rude like that, but honest!Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
