Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The movie was a complete farce of the Scripture though.They ended it with the twins girls I think for gay pride?
Artistic freedom happens. Not seen the flick, but if they focused on God wiping out life on the planet via flood except for an old man, his immediate family and a bunch of animals all surviving on a boat, they got the gist of it.
I doubt the director and/or writer had "twin lesbian babies" in mind when they showed that scene.
Originally posted by Robtard
Artistic freedom happens. Not seen the flick, but if they focused on God wiping out life on the planet via flood except for an old man, his immediate family and a bunch of animals all surviving on a boat, they got the gist of it.I doubt the director and/or writer had "twin lesbian babies" in mind when they showed that scene.
I didn't know what they where trying to do, first Noah was convinved that God wanted no more people and he wanted no off spring, then Noah's wife goes to his grandfather and he's got all sort of powers and he asks her to remove the curse from his son's wife so that she may have kids, circumventing Noah's plan. He goes ape shit and threatens to kill the babies as soon as they are born if they are boys. Just so happens they come out as two girls..not to say they are going to be lesbians, just I'm literally drawing a blank and the writing of this movie.
Where they going with that God won and in this version of Noah planet extinction of people and that we should have no humans on this earth
Or
That man went against God and that no matter what he got what he wanted producing no males.
Originally posted by Stealth MooseThere's no point in giving credit to tenets of a faith when those tenets are not based on scientific or objective fact ...
Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact.
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets? Adam & Eve. Great Flood. Fire breathing sea monsters. Human being capable of living inside a giant fish. 6,000 or so old Earth. Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days. Vegan lions and tigers and bears, oh my. etc etc etc etc.
If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact 🙂
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Prove that the tenets of Abrahamic groups like the Seventh Day Adventists are not generally consistent with or generally in alignment with scientific or objective fact.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets? Adam & Eve. Great Flood. Fire breathing sea monsters. Human being capable of living inside a giant fish. 6,000 or so old Earth. Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days. Vegan lions and tigers and bears, oh my. etc etc etc etc.If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact 🙂
👆
Also, nice shifting of that burden of proof, BWR.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets?
Don't fully know. Not a 7th Day Adventist. I admire them, but I'm not one of them. They are reasonably well-known for their adherence to Biblical principles though, and have a good reputation as a community with better than average health compared to other people in the U.S. They've been the subject of quite a few medical studies because of that.
Originally posted by Robtard
If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact 🙂
Keep the phrasing correct. At the least, even to be in accordance with what Stealth Moose outlines: "consistent with scientific OR objective fact".
For "science" and "scientific fact" have fairly strict definitions not met by the way we use those words in normal everyday life.
Originally posted by Robtard
Adam & Eve.
Haven't seen anything objectively disproving them yet.
Originally posted by Robtard
Great Flood.
The subject of this entire thread, more or less.
More than likely I'll be supplying some things for consideration in the days to come.
Originally posted by Robtard
Fire breathing sea monsters.
Lightning bolt throwing "water snakes"?
Also bombardier beetle (creates a chemical fire for defense against enemies), and angler fish (creates its own light to hunt for other fish).
Originally posted by Robtard
Human being capable of living inside a giant fish.
Look up the name "James Bartley".
Originally posted by Robtard
6,000 or so old Earth.
Goes with the Flood; we'll get to it as a matter of course in this thread.
Originally posted by Robtard
Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days.
This one's a challenge, admittedly.
Originally posted by Robtard
Vegan lions ...
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Stories/LittleTyke.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSopWo3IUvU
Originally posted by Robtard... tigers ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMm43YNhg8g
(Not asserting this is this particular tiger's main diet, though; this is just for those who cannot envision a tiger eating plants)
Originally posted by Robtard
... and bears
http://www.ibtimes.com/are-black-bears-going-vegan-yosemite-park-bears-stealing-63-fewer-picnic-baskets-favor-natural-diet
Originally posted by Robtard
Do 7th Day Adventist believe the Bible to be true in all its facets?
Don't fully know. Not a 7th Day Adventist. I admire them, but I'm not one of them. They are reasonably well-known for their adherence to Biblical principles though, and have a good reputation as a community with better than average health compared to other people in the U.S. They've been the subject of quite a few medical studies because of that.
Originally posted by Robtard
If the answer is yes, then that would be not consistent with scientific fact 🙂
Keep the phrasing correct. At the least, even to be in accordance with what Stealth Moose outlines: "consistent with scientific OR objective fact".
For "science" and "scientific fact" have fairly strict definitions not met by the way we use those words in normal everyday life.
Originally posted by Robtard
Adam & Eve.
Haven't seen anything objectively disproving them yet.
Originally posted by Robtard
Great Flood.
The subject of this entire thread, more or less.
More than likely I'll be supplying some things for consideration in the days to come.
Originally posted by Robtard
Fire breathing sea monsters.
Lightning bolt throwing "water snakes"?
Also bombardier beetle (creates a chemical fire for defense against enemies), and angler fish (creates its own light to hunt for other fish).
Originally posted by Robtard
Human being capable of living inside a giant fish.
Look up the name "James Bartley".
Originally posted by Robtard
6,000 or so old Earth.
Goes with the Flood; we'll get to it as a matter of course in this thread.
Originally posted by Robtard
Corpses coming back to life after 3 or so days.
This one's a challenge, admittedly.
Originally posted by Robtard
Vegan lions ...
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Stories/LittleTyke.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSopWo3IUvU
Originally posted by Robtard... tigers ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMm43YNhg8g
(Not asserting this is this particular tiger's main diet, though; this is just for those who cannot envision a tiger eating plants)
Originally posted by Robtard
... and bears
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
So because nothing has objectively disproven (X), it must exist?Are there unicorns running around out there, simply because science and/or I haven't disproven them?
There's a Bible on BWR's computer desk. Since it hasn't been objectively disproven, I must assume it exists. Ergo, I win.
Unicorns dancing in the spring time.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Don't fully know. Not a 7th Day Adventist. I admire them, but I'm not one of them. They are reasonably well-known for their adherence to Biblical principles though, and have a good reputation as a community with better than average health compared to other people in the U.S. They've been the subject of quite a few medical studies because of that.Keep the phrasing correct. At the least, even to be in accordance with what Stealth Moose outlines: "consistent with scientific OR [b]objective
fact".
For "science" and "scientific fact" have fairly strict definitions not met by the way we use those words in normal everyday life.Haven't seen anything objectively disproving them yet.
The subject of this entire thread, more or less.
More than likely I'll be supplying some things for consideration in the days to come.Lightning bolt throwing "water snakes"?
Also bombardier beetle (creates a chemical fire for defense against enemies), and angler fish (creates its own light to hunt for other fish).
Look up the name "James Bartley".
Goes with the Flood; we'll get to it as a matter of course in this thread.
This one's a challenge, admittedly.
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Stories/LittleTyke.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSopWo3IUvUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMm43YNhg8g
(Not asserting this is this particular tiger's main diet, though; this is just for those who cannot envision a tiger eating plants)
If you don't know, why pose the question to someone else? The answer is yes though, they hold the Bible to be truth.
Okay.
Pretty sure people being made out of dirt and then a rib of said dirt-man is not held as "fact" or "science" or "scientific fact".
Do so.
Those are not the leviathan, not even close
Did. Bartly is an urban legend and said to have been inside a whale (not a great fish) for 15 hrs. Urban legends are not facts.
6,000 year old Earth spits in the face of logic.
The lion was a cute little story. I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) living in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Does not follow logic.
Originally posted by Robtard
If you don't know, why pose the question to someone else? The answer is yes though, they hold the Bible to be truth.Okay.
Pretty sure people being made out of dirt and then a rib of said dirt-man is not held as "fact" or "science" or "scientific fact".
Do so.
Those are not the leviathan, not even close
Did. Bartly is an urban legend and said to have been inside a whale (not a great fish) for 15 hrs. Urban legends are not facts.
6,000 year old Earth spits in the face of logic.
The lion was a cute little story. I was referring to the notion that all animals (including dinosaurs) living in harmony in the Garden of Eden before the fall. Does not follow logic.
Logic is of the devil. 😈