1 2 3
#1403158
Prager
So all of the archeological finds that date back more than 6000 years must be all faked, huh?
Riiiiiiight.
5/15/2012 3:43:46 AM
#1403162
Mudak
Here's a deal I'll make with you: show me evidence for the flood of which you speak. Then we'll talk.
5/15/2012 3:47:52 AM
#1403165
Meishayuri
Why yes, everyone knows that not only would Jesus be invisible to time travelers, but so would that pesky proof of a flood. Self-Mutation has skipped his dosage yet again.
5/15/2012 3:51:29 AM
#1403180
Rabbit of Caerbannog
Dumbest person on the Internet strikes again.
5/15/2012 4:03:17 AM
#1403191
Arctic Knight
After reading this guys posts over the last several days, I think he is quickly going to surpass AV1611VET as most idiotic.
5/15/2012 4:19:34 AM
#1403194
Serph-no-Okami
@Prager: Well you do know that all dating methods are flawed, right? Except the ones that agree with what fundies want to, then it's infallible.
5/15/2012 4:26:51 AM
#1403201
Brendan Rizzo
Translation:
LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
5/15/2012 4:43:04 AM
#1403222
Mister Spak
We have no evidence that the flood existed.
No, your big book-o-fairy-tales is not evidence.
5/15/2012 5:15:28 AM
#1403228
D Laurier
China existed before your "flood".
We have evidence in the form of writen documents from the very oldest Chinese statelettes as far back as 2800 bce, and pottery dating back to 8000 bce.
5/15/2012 5:27:22 AM
#1403229
Doubting Thomas
There is no better example of "La la la la la I can't hear you!" than this post right here.
5/15/2012 5:31:04 AM
#1403231
Draken
That seems quite correct. Given that we have no evidence of the type of global flood you seem to be referring to, "before the Flood" is a meaningless temporal clause.
5/15/2012 5:35:13 AM
#1403244
Sentry Gun
Ecxcept for the ones we have.
5/15/2012 5:43:39 AM
#1403265
dionysusSo how did an
18,000 year old piece of pottery come to be when the culture that made it didn't exist for another 12,000 years? Are the Chinese timelords?
5/15/2012 6:14:54 AM
#1403271
Joe Mama
You claim we have no evidence that China existed before the flood, but I'm guessing you think there is ample evidence the flood itself existed?
I think I'll put my trust into what historians & archaeologists say rather than an ancient book written by a bunch of superstitious desert goat herders.
5/15/2012 6:28:01 AM
#1403300
Raised by Horses
"We have no such evidence that China existed before the Flood."
There... There are simply no words.
Can we just appropriate Australia and turn it into Fundieland? We'd be much happier, and I know they would be, too. There's no reasoning with this kind of stupidity.
5/15/2012 6:48:54 AM
#1403304
anevilmeme
So you think the flood was real and China wasn't?
Not only have you just destroyed every irony meter on the planet you took out the factories where they're made as well.
5/15/2012 6:50:28 AM
#1403313
J. James
I'm confused. China the people or China the landmass? Both easily pre-date the flood, which by the way NEVER HAPPENED.
5/15/2012 6:54:08 AM
#1403318
Reynardine
In fact, we have evidence that China was an independent continent when the seas were populated by organisms almost as simple as you.
5/15/2012 7:00:06 AM
#1403327
shykid"
When you can't believe that China did not exist before the Flood, that does not mean it DID exist before the Flood. [...]
We have no such evidence that China existed before the Flood."
Actually,
so,
so much archeological and historical evidence shows otherwise. Civilization in China was very much alive and well before your supposed worldwide flood, and it appears to have been completely unfazed by it.
Given that myths of a worldwide flood seem to be shared primarily by a diverse group of cultures that all originated in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East—near the Mediterranean—it
does seem to me quite possible that there was a very massive and devastating flood of some kind
in that area, which would certainly seem like a "worldwide" flood to the people of that time. This idea is also given a bit of credulity by the tendency of the rivers in the region to overflow as well as the area being nearly surrounded by seas. But for such a massive flood to have spread as far east as China is absolutely ludicrous.
...oh, fuck me, why I am I trying to be reasonable with Self-Mutation?
5/15/2012 7:08:40 AM
#1403347
breakerslion
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl,2879/
5/15/2012 7:40:46 AM
#1403348
John
According to the Bible, the Flood occurred between 2300 and 2500 BC. We certainly have evidence that China existed before that.
5/15/2012 7:44:13 AM
#1403350
Anon-e-moose
"We have no such evidence that China existed before the Flood."
Some of the ancient Chinese writings were discovered, by archaeologists/historians, to be as early as 8,000 BCE. Way before the supposed 6,000 years that YECers claim this planet was 'created'.
So it's not just Kitzmiller vs. Dover that annihilates your argument - and thus your 'beliefs' - biologically.
PROTIP: There are ancient Chinese writings from during the supposed 'Flood'. Nope, no records of a supposed civilisation-destroying cataclysmic event. And the ancient Chinese were sticklers for record-keeping; it's the reason why said archaeologists & historians know so much about them (as they do, re. the ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Sumerians etc.
And yet, your so-called 'Bible' doesn't give the exact, precise, detailed information, facts, based on evidence we need. Funny, that, and not in a 'funny-ha-ha' way, neither.
Why, it's as if... the Bible was written by nothing more than Bronze Age goatfuckers with ideas above their station...? At least we know that much about them, to say nothing of it's fundie, Literalist believers: Ignorant and Illiterate.
Moral: The Bible. It does the thinking for you. Meanwhile, the phrase 'Inquiring minds need to know'. It exists for a reason. And there's the key word: 'Reason'. Because the Bible - and it's unjustifiable 'beliefs' based on such - has none whatsoever.
5/15/2012 7:55:36 AM
#1403351
Atheissimo
Oh wow, that's the thread that just keeps on giving
5/15/2012 7:58:21 AM
#1403353
5/15/2012 8:03:50 AM
#1403384
pete
"Evidence". You keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means.
5/15/2012 8:54:47 AM
1 2 3