New series by Aron Ra: Why there was no Noachian Flood

[Aman777]

Wrong again. Did you read the article? You surely did not understand it:

"The large number of cereals showing specific kinds of scars on their seeds indicate the likelihood of those cereals growing in fields, and the presence of sickle blades indicates that these humans deliberately planned the harvest of cereal."

Though the plant would have started form wild stock unsown plants to not tend to grow in such densities that a sickle would have been of any use.

So? We are to believe that the sons of God (prehistoric people) had "sickle blades"? Were the blades made of tin or bronze? Is the problem that the false ToE proclaims that prehistoric people were Humans? Of course it is. They are ignorant of the fact that the sons of God were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam).

*** And no, the city that I found was not the first "large city". It was still rather small. But sadly you know that you are wrong. Art pops up long before agriculture. Fire much much longer earlier than that.

Art and fire are not among the traits of modern Humans. They are indications of prehistoric people. Some of the FIRST Humans cities are still with us.

*** I and others have shown your claims to be wrong countless times. All that you have is a nondescript map that does not support your claims at all.

What evidence do you have for your beliefs?

The Map of the Fertile Crescent is the consensus view of History of the FIRST Human farming on this Planet. It happened in the valleys just down the mountains from Lake Van, Turkey where Noah arrived in the 450 ft Ark. The Fertile Crescent also reveals the FIRST Human traits with were first demonstrated on Adam's Earth, Gen 4:17-22 which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6

My evidence is the Best and Only evidence available since today's scientists are willingly ignorant of the Fact that Adam's entire firmament/Heaven/Universe is gone. That's God's Truth which He set with the flood to catch the all knowing godless scientists who think they know more than He does. Soon, they will receive their increased punishment for teaching their godless views and offending little children, who believe in Jesus when they enter Public Schools.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So? We are to believe that the sons of God (prehistoric people) had "sickle blades"? Were the blades made of tin or bronze? Is the problem that the false ToE proclaims that prehistoric people were Humans? Of course it is. They are ignorant of the fact that the sons of God were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam).

It does not matter. They could even have been made of stone.

You are shown to be wrong.

Try again.

*** And no, the city that I found was not the first "large city". It was still rather small. But sadly you know that you are wrong. Art pops up long before agriculture. Fire much much longer earlier than that.
Art and fire are not among the traits of modern Humans. They are indications of prehistoric people. Some of the FIRST Humans cities are still with us.

Now you are must making garbage up and changing your argument. Were done. You lost.

 

[Aman777]

↑
Aman:>>So? We are to believe that the sons of God (prehistoric people) had "sickle blades"? Were the blades made of tin or bronze? Is the problem that the false ToE proclaims that prehistoric people were Humans? Of course it is. They are ignorant of the fact that the sons of God were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam).

It does not matter. They could even have been made of stone.

You are shown to be wrong.

Now you are must making garbage up and changing your argument. Were done. You lost.

Oh, the old "Declare victory as you run away" argument, I see. I didn't see any photos of the old sickle blade made of stone. Can you produce one? Or just admit that tin and bronze "sickle blades" were not made until some 6500 years ago, which PROVES my point. You lose, so go ahead and run away and everyone can see the refute I gave to your stone sickle blades. Please don't show flint scrapings and call them sickle blades. Amen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

↑
Aman:>>So? We are to believe that the sons of God (prehistoric people) had "sickle blades"? Were the blades made of tin or bronze? Is the problem that the false ToE proclaims that prehistoric people were Humans? Of course it is. They are ignorant of the fact that the sons of God were NOT Humans (descendants of Adam).



Oh, the old "Declare victory as you run away" argument, I see. I didn't see any photos of the old sickle blade made of stone. Can you produce one? Or just admit that tin and bronze "sickle blades" were not made until some 6500 years ago, which PROVES my point. You lose, so go ahead and run away and everyone can see the refute I gave to your stone sickle blades. Please don't show flint scrapings and call them sickle blades. Amen?

No, I showed that you were wrong with proper links. Meanwhile you have nothing but empty claims.

Until you provide some evidence for your side you have lost. Even a little evidence beats no evidence at all and you have no evidence.

Why should I work any harder to show that you are wrong? And why are you hung up on metal? Sickle blades do not have to be metallic, they only need to be able to cut grain. Stone sickle blades would do the deed just as well and they would still be a sign of agriculture. You are merely trying to move the goal posts now that you have been shown to be wrong. That is another act of a loser.

ETA: The use of metals did not appear suddenly either. This is more evidence that tells us that you are wrong. As one would expect usage started with native metals and proceeded from there.

Here is a rather basic article for you:


The Discovery of Metals

Can I ask you where you got your ideas from? They are not supported by either the Bible or by the sciences. They look like the lunacy that Von Daniken used to espouse.

 

[Aman777]

No, I showed that you were wrong with proper links. Meanwhile you have nothing but empty claims.

Until you provide some evidence for your side you have lost. Even a little evidence beats no evidence at all and you have no evidence.

Sure I do. Here's some. It shows the date when the first metals were made, according to YOUR site:

>>>Gold, Silver and Copper are all examples of Native metals that naturally occur in a relatively pure state. Ancient man first found and began using Native Metals approximately 5000 years BC red how to find, manipulate and use these native metals in better ways and in a range of applications.<><<

What happened to the 23k years ago when they discovered "sickle blade" evidence on some of the grains? Your own reference proves you wrong.

*** Why should I work any harder to show that you are wrong? And why are you hung up on metal? Sickle blades do not have to be metallic, they only need to be able to cut grain. Stone sickle blades would do the deed just as well and they would still be a sign of agriculture. You are merely trying to move the goal posts now that you have been shown to be wrong. That is another act of a loser.

It was your reference, not mine. You should notify the site that it could NOT have been metal sickle blades, which cut the weeds, since they didn't exist until 18k years later. As you say, it could have been like flint chips. I'm still waiting for your REFUTE of anything I have posted or your proof that I have been refuted many times.

Perhaps you don't know the difference? To refute is to "prove wrong". All you have given is your own personal opinion which is a rebuttal or trying to prove another wrong. Keep at it and you will find that God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way, literally, poetically and spiritually IF you have the proper interpretation.

*** ETA: The use of metals did not appear suddenly either. This is more evidence that tells us that you are wrong. As one would expect usage started with native metals and proceeded from there.

Here is a rather basic article for you:

The Discovery of Metals

Thanks. I appreciate the information which shows you wrong. Perhaps you should try another site?

*** Can I ask you where you got your ideas from? They are not supported by either the Bible or by the sciences. They look like the lunacy that Von Daniken used to espouse.

Von Daniken proposed that Humans might have come to Earth in a Spaceship. I see Adam's firmament as more like a Submarine, since it was a Metallic Object which contained the entirety of Adam's Earth. It was miles in diameter and made BEFORE the big bang of our Cosmos. Today, it is buried under 11k years of Volcanic debris at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. As the solid firmament sank, it released the 450 ft Ark into our world and brought Human (Adam's descendants) civilization, from his world which was totally destroyed in the flood. That's God's Truth which AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind. God Bless you

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure I do. Here's some. It shows the date when the first metals were made, according to YOUR site:

>>>Gold, Silver and Copper are all examples of Native metals that naturally occur in a relatively pure state. Ancient man first found and began using Native Metals approximately 5000 years BC red how to find, manipulate and use these native metals in better ways and in a range of applications.<><<

What happened to the 23k years ago when they discovered "sickle blade" evidence on some of the grains? Your own reference proves you wrong.

Wrong again. Why do you keep assuming that a sickle has to be metal? A stone edged sickle would work too. And please note that my source refutes you since there was use of native metals before smelting. You tried to claim that it came on the scene direct to smelting, that is not what is observed.

Another failure brought by Aman.

*** Why should I work any harder to show that you are wrong? And why are you hung up on metal? Sickle blades do not have to be metallic, they only need to be able to cut grain. Stone sickle blades would do the deed just as well and they would still be a sign of agriculture. You are merely trying to move the goal posts now that you have been shown to be wrong. That is another act of a loser.

It was your reference, not mine. You should notify the site that it could NOT have been metal sickle blades, which cut the weeds, since they didn't exist until 18k years later. As you say, it could have been like flint chips. I'm still waiting for your REFUTE of anything I have posted or your proof that I have been refuted many times.

Correct, it would not have been a metal sickle. And I did refute the ignorant claims that you have made. It seems that you can't admit to your own obvious errors. Your claim was that agriculture started much later than it did. YOU WERE WRONG.

Perhaps you don't know the difference? To refute is to "prove wrong". All you have given is your own personal opinion which is a rebuttal or trying to prove another wrong. Keep at it and you will find that God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way, literally, poetically and spiritually IF you have the proper interpretation.

*** ETA: The use of metals did not appear suddenly either. This is more evidence that tells us that you are wrong. As one would expect usage started with native metals and proceeded from there.

Here is a rather basic article for you:

The Discovery of Metals

Thanks. I appreciate the information which shows you wrong. Perhaps you should try another site?

How did the link that I used that proved your claims to be bogus prove me to be wrong?

*** Can I ask you where you got your ideas from? They are not supported by either the Bible or by the sciences. They look like the lunacy that Von Daniken used to espouse.

Von Daniken proposed that Humans might have come to Earth in a Spaceship. I see Adam's firmament as more like a Submarine, since it was a Metallic Object which contained the entirety of Adam's Earth. It was miles in diameter and made BEFORE the big bang of our Cosmos. Today, it is buried under 11k years of Volcanic debris at the bottom of Lake Van, Turkey, in the mountains of Ararat. As the solid firmament sank, it released the 450 ft Ark into our world and brought Human (Adam's descendants) civilization, from his world which was totally destroyed in the flood. That's God's Truth which AGREES in every way with every discovery of mankind. God Bless you

No, you have no clue as to where the Ark would be, even if it did ever exist. What you based your claim on has been shown to exist in many other areas.

It looks like you are merely making up bogus nonsense since even you know that you cannot support any of your claims.

Perhaps you are just a poe. I can't see a real creationist making these gross and foolish errors.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

It is an open forum. You should be able to have several discussions at once.

Thanks for invite.

Im all good

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

He is wrong. Quirinius was not in Syria at that time. He was in what is now Turkey:

Please excuse me friend. What part of the text is wrong for the link i supplied in relation to which part of the link you supplied.

Nope, then it is time to try to be honest. Can you be honest? I can. You need to find sites that are better than Christian apologist sites.

Please excuse me.

Can you explain to me how this is not using an attack instead of a valid argument?

Yes, but the questions need to have an honest basis to them. You fail in that regard.

Just try to be honest and the friction will go down.

Please friend, Can u advise me on how to meet these requirements?

This discussion seems to be turning into a 'fraid not 'fraid so scenerio.

So far i disagree with you.

Cheers

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please excuse me friend. What part of the text is wrong for the link i supplied in relation to which part of the link you supplied.

If you can't pay attention you really really need to cut your posts lengths down. Your source tried to claim that Quirinius had a post in Syria at 4 BC. He didn't.

Please excuse me.

Can you explain to me how this is not using an attack instead of a valid argument?

Now you are simply not being honest again. This is not the way that a Christian is supposed to act. You used a bogus and biased site. It is the job of apologists to lie for the Bible if need be. You did not find a history based source, you found a source that lied about history. I demonstrated that he was wrong with a far less biased source. I could do so again, but when you used such a weak source, the source that I used was more than enough to refute it.

Please friend, Can u advise me on how to meet these requirements?

This discussion seems to be turning into a 'fraid not 'fraid so scenerio.

So far i disagree with you.

Cheers

Easy, don't use bogus sources. Look for actual history based sources instead of sources that are willing to lie about history. Once again, I don't mind people have false beliefs, but when they have to use liars to support those beliefs they are not much better than liars themselves. Look up the actual history instead of going to apologists with no credibility whatsoever.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

If you can't pay attention you really really need to cut your posts lengths down

Hello friend


Im good with my length haha

Your source tried to claim that Quirinius had a post in Syria at 4 BC. He didn't.

And why could he not have friend?

Now you are simply not being honest again

Are you on a loop? I fear that this may become boring

You used a bogus and biased site. It is the job of apologists to lie for the Bible if need be. You did not find a history based source, you found a source that lied about history

Wow. You sound angry. An atheist who argues with emotion

I demonstrated that he was wrong with a far less biased source.

No you haven't.

Easy, don't use bogus sources. Look for actual history based sources instead of sources that are willing to lie about history. Once again, I don't mind people have false beliefs, but when they have to use liars to support those beliefs they are not much better than liars themselves. Look up the actual history instead of going to apologists with no credibility whatsoever.

I dont know about this advice. It got you to your current position

But let's get to the heart of it. You are not being honest, you know it, I know it.

Why make the effort to write this out again. You could save time. Cut and paste from one of your previous posts

Do you believe that the flood killed all people except Noah and company? Yes or no

No.


Imo i believe that all the descendants of Adam were punished - sons of God. This left behind 'Noah and company' and 6th day who went forth and multiplied.

It seems that you need the Noahs flood to be global. That way your bottleneck theory is relevant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello friend


Im good with my length haha





And why could he not have friend?

Did you not pay any attention? He was fighting a war in what is not Turkey at the time.

Are you on a loop? I fear that this may become boring

That is your fault and not mine. Again, you are not being honest. When you are dishonest I need to point that out. Complaining about your bad actions is hypocritical on your part.

Wow. You sound angry. An atheist who argues with emotion

Irritated. When you are dishonest you irritate people. This probably happens to you quite a lot.

No you haven't.

And you are looping in dishonesty. You used a lying source. You lost.





I dont know about this advice. It got you to your current position





Why make the effort to write this out again. You could save time. Cut and paste from one of your previous posts





No.


Imo i believe that all the descendants of Adam were punished - sons of God. This left behind 'Noah and company' and 6th day who went forth and multiplied.

It seems that you need the Noahs flood to be global. That way your bottleneck theory is relevant?[/QUOTE]


Too bad that you can't even be honest enough to answer a simple yes/no question.

More dishonesty from you. If you can't be honest why continue?

Until you agree to be honest and post properly we are done.

 

[Queller]

Hello brother

I was having a discussion with sub. Please excuse me. You asked me for a discussion and i said no.

Cheers and God bless you

You didn't refuse because you were discussing something with sub, you refused because we are "brothers in Christ" and you apparently saw "No need to discuss anything other than our love for Jesus".

At least keep your story straight.

 

[Queller]

False, since according to History, the FIRST traits of modern Humans suddenly appeared in the valleys of Mesopotamia, just SW of Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago. These traits include farming, city building, and EVERY other trait of modern Humans. Here's the secular evidence which NO one can refute:

Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

It shows the arrival of the first Humans, (descendants of Adam) who brought his superior intelligence to this planet of the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Scripture and History AGREE. Do you?

The claim that civilization arose in the Fertile Crescent (which is debatable as Subduction Zone demonstrated) in no way provides evidence for your claim that the "descendants of Adam" mated with the "descendants of the common ancestor of apes". I know you want it to, but it doesn't.

 

[Aman777]

The claim that civilization arose in the Fertile Crescent (which is debatable as Subduction Zone demonstrated) in no way provides evidence for your claim that the "descendants of Adam" mated with the "descendants of the common ancestor of apes". I know you want it to, but it doesn't.

Then please explain the evolution of superior intelligence. Tell us:

How it got inside our bodies? The mechanism for changing the elemental rule which states that only by inheritance can one become a Human. Humans produce Humans. Apes do NOT magically change over time within a population and morph into Humans. God tells us exactly HOW this happens in this one verse:

Gen 6:4 There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric people) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

See? Prehistoric people married and had children with the descendants of Adam who arrived in the mountains of Ararat 11k years ago, according to History Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE AND Scripture. Gen 8:4 Today's 7.4 Billion Humans are the end result. Amen?

 

[Queller]

Then please explain the evolution of superior intelligence.

Is your Google broken?

Tell us:

How it got inside our bodies? The mechanism for changing the elemental rule which states that only by inheritance can one become a Human. Humans produce Humans. Apes do NOT magically change over time within a population and morph into Humans.

The only one who claims magic are involved is you.

God tells us exactly HOW this happens in this one verse:

Gen 6:4 There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric people) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

None of the words in parentheses above are in the verse you're quoting. That is your addition into the verse.

You do know what the Bible says about adding to Scripture, don't you?

See? Prehistoric people married and had children with the descendants of Adam who arrived in the mountains of Ararat 11k years ago, according to History

No, according to YOUR claims.

 

[Aman777]

Is your Google broken?

The only one who claims magic are involved is you.

Aman:>>God tells us exactly HOW this happens in this one verse:

Gen 6:4 There were (intellectual) giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God (prehistoric people) came in unto the daughters of men, (Heb-Adam) and they bare children to them, the same (children) became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

*** None of the words in parentheses above are in the verse you're quoting. That is your addition into the verse.

You do know what the Bible says about adding to Scripture, don't you?

No, according to YOUR claims.

I haven't added to what is written, but instead, put my understanding in parentheses and black. I know that unbelievers CANNOT understand Scripture, so I try to help them. I suppose the old saying is true, No good deed goes unpunished. God Bless you

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't added to what is written, but instead, put my understanding in parentheses and black. I know that unbelievers CANNOT understand Scripture, so I try to help them. I suppose the old saying is true, No good deed goes unpunished. God Bless you

1Co 2:14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

Why did you cite a verse that only explains your inability to understand the Bible?

 

[Queller]

I haven't added to what is written, but instead, put my understanding in parentheses and black. I know that unbelievers CANNOT understand Scripture, so I try to help them. I suppose the old saying is true, No good deed goes unpunished. God Bless you

What evidence do you have that your "understanding" is correct? Do you have any sources outside yourself that support your "understanding"?

I notice you completely ignored the link about how intelligence evolved without the mating between descendants of the common ancestor of apes and sons of Adam.

 

[Aman777]

What evidence do you have that your "understanding" is correct? Do you have any sources outside yourself that support your "understanding"?

I notice you completely ignored the link about how intelligence evolved without the mating between descendants of the common ancestor of apes and sons of Adam.

I support my views with the agreement of Scripture, science and history. That is WHY some worshipers of evolism don't like me, since they cannot refute me with their half-truths. Evolution of God's superior intelligence is impossible since you are either a descendant of Adam, the first Human, or NOT. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes, as falsely believed by many misguided evols. Amen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I support my views with the agreement of Scripture, science and history. That is WHY some worshipers of evolism don't like me, since they cannot refute me with their half-truths. Evolution of God's superior intelligence is impossible since you are either a descendant of Adam, the first Human, or NOT. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes, as falsely believed by many misguided evols. Amen?

But you don't. If you could you might have a point. When history disagrees with you, which is most of the time, you ignore it. It is far worse for you when it comes to science. And as to the Bible if it does not say what you want it to say you make things up.