Jump to content


Photo

Ark Encounter Project: Ken Ham Holds Live Streaming Conference


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 21 March 2014 - 11:47 AM

 

I mentioned Chinese Treasure ships which were larger than the ark and were also seaworthy. So there is your good evidence.

 

It's definitely excellent historical evidence.  



#42 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 March 2014 - 02:05 PM

 

I mentioned Chinese Treasure ships which were larger than the ark and were also seaworthy. So there is your good evidence.

Yeah, the China Travel Bureau says so.

 

On the other hand, I've provided documented evidence showing the alleged lengthh of these vessels is in considerable dispute among maritime experts.  Further, modern wood ships of only 300 feet have had severe issues with leakage caused by the bending and twisting of the hull in the sea.  If you read the list of sources, you would have found one of them is MIT.

 

You've heard of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, haven't you?  They're one of the top engineering schools in the world.

 

 

 

It's definitely excellent historical evidence.  

Tell ya what......

 

You guys put out to sea in a major storm on a ship built by the brochure wiriters at the Chinese Travel agency..... I'll go out in one built by the engineers at MIT.  Let's see who comes back........

 

(Apologies to Cal for doing this  before my response to his questions, but this one only took a couple minutes.)



#43 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 March 2014 - 05:22 PM

Yeah, the China Travel Bureau says so.

 

On the other hand, I've provided documented evidence showing the alleged lengthh of these vessels is in considerable dispute among maritime experts.  Further, modern wood ships of only 300 feet have had severe issues with leakage caused by the bending and twisting of the hull in the sea.  If you read the list of sources, you would have found one of them is MIT.

 

You've heard of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, haven't you?  They're one of the top engineering schools in the world.

 

 

Not the China travel bureau.... History says so... Are you going to doubt historical records on this? Would you doubt other historical events? (I guess this is a running theme considering atheist's denial of the historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection).

 

Where did you display this documented evidence against the length of these vessels... All I saw was you claiming its not possible based on your own opinions.. Opinions are not evidence. 



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 March 2014 - 10:32 PM

 

paisan, just admit it.  You're looking for reasons not to trust the Bible.   

Not true.  I simply reject the doctrine of "sola scriptura."  Further, I recognize the literal reading of the Bible isn't always the right one.  The Bible is full of lessons taught in symbolism, metaphor, parable, and other non-literal forms.  We disagree about how and when, not Who.

 

The question is should we take what the Bible says as literally true, or should we look for some deeper meaning.  In the case of Genesis, literalism doesn't hold up when compared to God is telling us in His creation (Psalms 19:1).  In a situtation like that, we must resolve the actual meaning and intent of what the Bible says.  After all, "truth cannot contradict truth."  Paraphrasing St. Augustine....There are things we know from experience and knowledge.... It's a dangerous thing for non-believers to hear the faithful pronouncing idiocy on those things.

 

 

piasan, on 19 Mar 2014 - 01:39 AM, said:

As for Ham..... what he's building is a "mock-up" not the real deal.  I won't dispute a wood structure the size of the Ark can be built.  The question is whether or not that structure would be seaworthy.   Oh yeah .... he still has less than half the money needed to complete the Ark.  My prediction is that it will never be completed.  (This is one of those times I hope I'm wrong.)

 

 

You're hoping this because you don't want Genesis to be true. Fair enough.  I hope he finishes it.  

Read what I said a little more carefully.  See where I said:  "This is one of those times I hope I'm wrong."  So you think I'm hoping I'm wrong that Ham will never finish the mockup of the Ark because I don't want Genesis to be true?  No, Cal.... I hope he finishes it too.  I just don't think he will be able to find the funding.  Even the scaled back version of the Ark theme park is years behind schedule due to an inability to find the money.

 

 

Whether Ham finishes his structure or not does nothing to prove the accuracy of Genesis.  How many times do I need to tell you the ability to build a wood structure with the dimensions of the Ark is not in question?  Let's tow that structure out to sea and have it spend over a year in the open ocean ...... then get back to me.

 

 

I quoted the verse which says that metal was actually mastered before the flood, and therefore any post flood bronze age.  But I know.... bible.... not your bag.

I had already acknowledged metal would have been available to Noah.  The Bible verse didn't change that.

 

 

Okay, so you ignore science when it comes to the Resurrection, but embrace science when it comes to Genesis.  Why?  

Silly of me.  I thought the Resurrection is proof of Christ's divinity.... partly because science can't explain it.  After all, mere humans don't rise from the dead.

 

With regard to Genesis, and in something of an effort to keep this on topic.... the evidence I would expect to see if there was, in fact, a single global flood event is missing.  That evidence would be an identifiable layer in the strata.  Something along the lines of the iridium layer that exists wherever the K-T boundary is exposed.  The Ark doesn't even show up in my top 3 reasons for rejecting a global flood.

 

 

You say you don't care about Spong, but that's evading the issue. Why is he wrong for spiritualizing the Resurrection, based on modern medical science?  How is what he's doing different then what you're doing?  

I don't care about Sprong.  As far as I can recall, I'd only heard the name once or twice before. I neither know nor care about what he's doing and how it compares to my position(s).... and I have neither the time nor inclination to learn enough about Sprong's teachings to make an informed response.  (Note:  Don't mistake indifference for evasion.)

 

 

IOW's you just seem to pick and choose where you apply science and where you don't.  You like the Jesus story and the resurrection, so you ignore science.  My guess is you probably like the virgin birth story, so you ignore science there also.

There are some things we call "mysteries of faith."  There is no reason creation should need to be among them as we have a lot of information provided to us by God in His creation itself.

 

 

But creation, Curse, Flood, you don't like, so you hide behind science.  

OK.... here's the quick list of where I don't agree with Genesis literalism and why:

1)  Six day creation only 6,000 years ago.  Reason:  We see objects and events millions of times beyond a 6,000 year event horizon. 

2)  "Perfect" creation.  Reason:  False.  Man was clearly flawed, therefore the creation could not have been perfect.  Further, the Bible doesn't say it was perfect either.

3)  No death before the fall.  Reason:  The death referenced in Gen. 3 is not physical death.

4)  Story of the Garden of Eden is symbolic.  Reason:  (3) as well at the names of the trees and the fact Adam and Eve were told in Gen. 2 that they would surely die on the day they ate from the tree.  Yet it is clear from what they were told in Gen. 3 that they did not suffer physical death on that day.

5)  Life spans of hundreds of years.  Reason:  The ancients ate stone ground grain.  Stone particulate in the grain is extremely abrasive and will wear teeth down quickly.  (This can be observed in populations eating such grain today.)  Teeth would be worn out in a hundred years or so.

6)  Global flood.  Reasons:  Missing flood layer.  All creation science proposals for a source of flood water would cook the planet.  Nowhere for the water to go after the flood.  Issues with the Ark.  Issues with logistics.  Too many alleles in human population.  Requires evolution thousands of times faster than evolutionists claim.

 

 

I think greg and piasan have dug in, and will not admit Noah built an ark no matter how much evidence is put before them.  

I've never said an Ark couldn't be built.  What I have said is a wood vessel that large in the open sea will break up due to hull flexure.  As evidence, I offer the fact all modern wood vessels over 300 feet require steel reinforcement and constant pumping to stay afloat.

 

piasan, you are so evasive.  

You mistake a lack of time for evasion.

 

 

 why wouldn't a full size Ark in Kentucky which is an actual built structure, not just a bunch of wood being built moved around on ramps, also be proof to you?  

I have never doubted the ability to build an actual structure the size of the Ark.  That is not the question.  Let Ham move his Ark to the ocean and float it in the open sea for more than a year.  Then you'll have addressed my issue.

 

 

Again, you pick and choose what you believe, and what you accept as evidence, almost randomly. 

It may appear that way to you, but I don't think you are qualified to make that determination as you lack a lot of the necessary facts.

 

 

And I'm still waiting for an answer on why you pick and choose where to apply science to the Bible.  Seems it's based on the stories you like, rather than a consistent method like Spong uses.  

I'm not sure there is a single answer.  My best suggestion is to read what St. Augustine said about the interpretation of Genesis.  The problem isn't new as Augustine was discussing it 1600 years ago.

 

 

You've been asked now about 4 times to explain why you ignore science in regard to the Resurrection, but embrace it (hide behind it) when it comes to Genesis.  

 

I'll just keep asking, but the silence is deafening.  

OK, looks like you edited your initial response and toned it down a bit.  Fine.

 

At first you said you "aren't buying it" that time is a problem.  I understand that it may seem that way to you, but I remind you I said I'd respond to Gilbo "tomorrow" and it took 4 days.  Time is a problem.  There are so many good discussions in this forum and I simply don't have time to participate near as much as I'd like.

 

Further, as I recall, Rule #10 said something about people responding.  As I recall, it basically said we all have lives outside this forum.  I could be wrong on that, and the rules apparently got scrambled in the recent operational problems the list had.

 

Anyway, I've now made the time and have answered the best I can.  Hope that helps.  Now.... let's get back on topic.



#45 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 21 March 2014 - 10:49 PM

Not the China travel bureau....

One of the two links you provided was this:

http://www.china-tra...-kong-junk.html

 

China-travel.com is a website that describes itself as "China Travel Guides & Tourist information."

 

 

History says so... Are you going to doubt historical records on this? Would you doubt other historical events?

Yeah.... I also have history that says those junks couldn't be seaworthy.  I asked this before.... you're a historian in early 1400's China and the Emporer or a powerful general tells you to record those ships are 400 feet long.  What happens if you don't record their length as 400 feet?  (Hint:  Your head will probably end up as a centerpiece at the dinner table.)  So, what do you record as "history?"

 

 

 (I guess this is a running theme considering atheist's denial of the historical evidence for Jesus and his resurrection).

I'm not an atheist.

 

 

Where did you display this documented evidence against the length of these vessels... All I saw was you claiming its not possible based on your own opinions.. Opinions are not evidence. 

Post #16.



#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 21 March 2014 - 11:04 PM

One of the two links you provided was this:

http://www.china-tra...-kong-junk.html

 

China-travel.com is a website that describes itself as "China Travel Guides & Tourist information."

 

 

Yeah.... I also have history that says those junks couldn't be seaworthy.  I asked this before.... you're a historian in early 1400's China and the Emporer or a powerful general tells you to record those ships are 400 feet long.  What happens if you don't record their length as 400 feet?  (Hint:  Your head will probably end up as a centerpiece at the dinner table.)  So, what do you record as "history?"

 

 

I'm not an atheist.

 

 

Post #16.

 

You do realise that all you gave here was your own speculation and opinion... As I said before OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS.

 

Sure one of my links was a travel link, the other more informative link was a link to a HISTORY SITE... So nice attempt to try and ignore this, the fact remains that the history books put the treasure junks at larger than the ark... and all you can do is state 'nah ah' as if doing so changed history.

 

Still waiting for this source from MIT you keep claiming stating that the junks would not be seaworthy... Perhaps consider the fact that even if someone cannot do something, that doesn't mean others can... 

 

Your post 16 only gave more speculation....

 

In terms of not being an atheist, you could have fooled me....



#47 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 21 March 2014 - 11:33 PM

...
5)  Life spans of hundreds of years.  Reason:  The ancients ate stone ground grain.  Stone particulate in the grain is extremely abrasive and will wear teeth down quickly.  (This can be observed in populations eating such grain today.)  Teeth would be worn out in a hundred years or so.
...


I don't want to derail this thread away from the subject of the ark, but an interesting point on that argument. Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, who argues that the craniofacial morphology of adult Neandertals is the result of them living for hundreds of years, has a whole chapter (31) devoted to that question in his book "Buried Alive".  He uses several factors to account for a slower attrition of their teeth including; slower maturation rates (longer retention of primary molars), larger molars with more complex enamel folding, a more efficient repair process on the enamel than the relic process we retain today, larger bodied (taurodont) molars that gave more room for reparative dentin buildup, and a diet that consisted predominantly of cooked meat.

 

It's funny how all of your arguments against a straight-forward reading of the Bible always seem to fall back on a premise of "all things continue as from the beginning of creation", as if nothing has been changed by or since the Fall.



#48 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 22 March 2014 - 09:41 AM

And piasan still running from the question of why he doesn't trust science when it comes to the Resurrection.  Since he won't answer for himself, perhaps we can open it up to speculation.  I think I'll start a new thread on this topic, to see if I can draw him out from hiding.  



#49 Pooduck

Pooduck

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ventura, CA

Posted 22 March 2014 - 11:15 PM

Why don't you YECs just prove it and cut the BS! Build a wooden ark to the specified dimensions, with the specified materials, loaded with the estimated minimum weight and take her for a spin? See what happens... 

 

Of course you won't do it cuz you KNOW somewhere down inside what a ridiculous and completely friggin absurd proposition this is. 

 

Do any of you actually think you could pul it off? With al the money in the christian right, just do it! Prove it! Think of the bragging rights!!!!



#50 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 March 2014 - 03:08 AM

Why don't you YECs just prove it and cut the BS! Build a wooden ark to the specified dimensions, with the specified materials, loaded with the estimated minimum weight and take her for a spin? See what happens... 

 

Of course you won't do it cuz you KNOW somewhere down inside what a ridiculous and completely friggin absurd proposition this is. 

 

Do any of you actually think you could pul it off? With al the money in the christian right, just do it! Prove it! Think of the bragging rights!!!!

 

Do you really think that would prove anything?

 

Perhaps consider that there would be totally different designs....

 

Even if it was done, atheists would still scoff, probably claim cheating or that it was made by modern equipment... etc.. We see the same thing happen when Jesus brought Lazarus back from the dead and even some of the eyewitnesses still didn't believe it... Meaning when a person has made up their mind to not believe, (like militant atheists), no amount of evidence will change their position.



#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 March 2014 - 06:52 AM

... Meaning when a person has made up their mind to not believe, (like militant atheists), no amount of evidence will change their position.

That's the rub, Gilbo.

Poo gives a task that would ultimately be meaningless to him, even if it succeeds, for the very reason you stated above.

I guess there's nothing left to do now but all become atheists. ;)

#52 Pooduck

Pooduck

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ventura, CA

Posted 23 March 2014 - 08:34 AM

I guess there's nothing left to do now but all become atheists. wink.png

 

Now we're getting somewhere! smile.png



#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 23 March 2014 - 12:53 PM

Now we're getting somewhere! smile.png

Well... Not so fast... Let's talk about these crazy superstitious beliefs I have and at the same time let's explore how reason and science have you concluding that the once held beliefs regarding a deity (whoever he, she, it or they might be) have been soundly washed down the drain by the firehose of reality....

Here:

http://evolutionfair...923#entry104121

#54 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 23 March 2014 - 02:44 PM

Why don't you YECs just prove it and cut the BS! Build a wooden ark to the specified dimensions, with the specified materials, loaded with the estimated minimum weight and take her for a spin? See what happens... 

 

Of course you won't do it cuz you KNOW somewhere down inside what a ridiculous and completely friggin absurd proposition this is. 

 

Do any of you actually think you could pul it off? With al the money in the christian right, just do it! Prove it! Think of the bragging rights!!!!

 

Pooduck, I'm noticing that you're not willing to engage in any kind constructive dialog.  If you're just going to throw mud, there are other forums that allow that stuff.  



#55 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 March 2014 - 12:14 AM

You do realise that all you gave here was your own speculation and opinion.

You must have gone to a different post #16.  The one I'm talking about provided multiple references supporting my claim the length of the Xheng He treasure ships is in dispute.

 

 

As I said before OPINIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS.

Claims based on evidence are valid arguments.

 

 

Sure one of my links was a travel link, the other more informative link was a link to a HISTORY SITE... So nice attempt to try and ignore this,

The other site was addressed in my post #16.  I pointed out that website was seriously out of date.  I guess in those terms, it really is a "HISTORY SITE."

 

I pointed out it is incorrect with a ship of 20-30,000 tons being one-half to two-thirds the size of a modern US aircraft carrier.  Their claim would put the "modern" US aircraft carrier somewhere in the range of 40-45,000 tons.  The last carriers that small were the Midway class completed right after World War II and decommissioned since 1992.  Since all US aircraft carriers built since 1975 have been over 100,000 tons either your "HISTORY SITE" is seriously out of date or sloppy with facts.  Either of which detracts from their credibility.

 

 

 the fact remains that the history books put the treasure junks at larger than the ark... and all you can do is state 'nah ah' as if doing so changed history.

The fact remains you have presented two sources.... one that appears to be at least 40 years old and one from a travel source.  All I've done is document that what you claim to be "history" is in dispute.... even among Chinese scholars. 

 

On the other hand, I also have history on my side.  Well documented history of multiple wood ships more than 300 feet long.  Unlike your claim of 460 foot long Chinese junks, there is no dispute as to the problems encountered by those ships.

 

Still waiting for this source from MIT you keep claiming stating that the junks would not be seaworthy... Perhaps consider the fact that even if someone cannot do something, that doesn't mean others can... 

I didn't say MIT said the junks would not be seaworthy.  I said they recognize ships over 300 feet long have severe problems. 

 

Here's what they said about a ship only 334 feet long:

"Only two years later, McKay's 334-foot-long Great Republic astounded everyone. With this behemoth, McKay had pushed wooden ship construction to its practical limits."

Link: http://web.mit.edu/m...ipper_ships.pdf

 

Notice, they said at 334 feet the construction of wood ships was at "its practical limits."  Those alleged Chinese junks were far beyond that.

 

It's worth note that the Great Republic used extensive metal reinforcements and was abandoned because it was leaking as the result of an encounter with a hurricane.

 

 

Your post 16 only gave more speculation....

You misspelled "documentation."  My claim the actual length of these junks is in dispute has been well documented.  My claim modern wood ships over 300 feet long had to have a lot of help to stay afloat is also well documented.

On the other hand, your claim of what is in the "history books" is documented by a travel site and a history site that appears to not reflect current thinking on the matter. 



#56 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 24 March 2014 - 12:15 AM

I don't want to derail this thread away from the subject of the ark, but an interesting point on that argument. Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, who argues that the craniofacial morphology of adult Neandertals is the result of them living for hundreds of years, has a whole chapter (31) devoted to that question in his book "Buried Alive".  He uses several factors to account for a slower attrition of their teeth including; slower maturation rates (longer retention of primary molars), larger molars with more complex enamel folding, a more efficient repair process on the enamel than the relic process we retain today, larger bodied (taurodont) molars that gave more room for reparative dentin buildup, and a diet that consisted predominantly of cooked meat.

 

It's funny how all of your arguments against a straight-forward reading of the Bible always seem to fall back on a premise of "all things continue as from the beginning of creation", as if nothing has been changed by or since the Fall.

I'll discuss this with you on Cal's new subject as soon as I get a chance.



#57 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:18 PM

I don't want to derail this thread away from the subject of the ark, but an interesting point on that argument. Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo, who argues that the craniofacial morphology of adult Neandertals is the result of them living for hundreds of years, has a whole chapter (31) devoted to that question in his book "Buried Alive".  He uses several factors to account for a slower attrition of their teeth including; slower maturation rates (longer retention of primary molars), larger molars with more complex enamel folding, a more efficient repair process on the enamel than the relic process we retain today, larger bodied (taurodont) molars that gave more room for reparative dentin buildup, and a diet that consisted predominantly of cooked meat.

 

BD, if you ever get a chance or have the time, check out Jon Saboe's novel, "The Days of Peleg."  He was influenced heavily by Cuozzo's work. Normally I'm not a fiction guy, generally, but this book really brought home some concepts for me.  The setting is post Babel Mesopotamia.  I'm really hoping it's made into a movie eventually.  

 

Peleg_cover5.jpg



#58 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:39 PM

The ark had pitch inside and out so it would have been very water resistant. If it cured over many years it may have formed a very impenetrable finish.

The ark would not need to be a great sailing vessel but merely stable. With the three levels I would guess that the twisting problem would have been greatly reduced. Having the heavier animals on the bottom level would add to the stability.

#59 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:44 PM

That was a response to some of the objections on the first page. It just got me thinking.

#60 Calminian

Calminian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:46 PM

So D4G, you're a jewish young earther (not messianic)?  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users