Missing link was a lie

[dad]

So, in other words, you don't know and you're just quoting this because you think it sounds like something supporting your point (whatever that may be). Yep. Sounds about right.

Look it wasn't me that brought it up. How do we determine what changed? You tell us, if you have some relevant point.

 

[Split Rock]

It was not I that made a claim. I asked a question about someone else's claim. They claimed there were kids. How would he know? If wicked men killed babies, or sacrificed them, or just didn't have any in the advanced wickedness stage, why would that surprise me? They are heading that way now. Too selfish to have kids, and they kill the ones they do get, some of em. Millions of em, actually. Hundreds of millions actually. So, why would God need to end it? Well, who says that they could not have had kids at some point, if there was some reason? Or, if they were abusing the ones they did get, and killing them, maybe He had enough? How would I know?

It is utterly ridiculous (nothing new for you) to think that maybe there weren't any kids because "wicked men killed them" or they "just didn't have any." Utter nonsense. So you are just "asking a question?" I have some more for you. How do we know these sinners weren't all from Neptune? How do we know that there wasn't a universal ban on toliet training? How do we know humans had five fingers on each hand? How do we know the Bible wasn't written on the backs of banded armadillos? Just asking, dad.

I just like to point out that some people don't know what they are talking about.

Yep, and you are one excellent case in point of that!

You know, call those that accuse God to task.

Once again your hubris and blasphemy is showing. So, if I accuse YOU of a ridiculous, nonsensical suggestion, like "maybe they didn't have any kids 'cause they wuz all sinners," then I am accusing God, huh? No, dad. I am accusing YOU. You are Not God!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just like God didn't supposedly 'murder' babies during the flood, he 'merely' killed them, right?

What babies?

 

[dad]

It is utterly ridiculous (nothing new for you) to think that maybe there weren't any kids because "wicked men killed them" or they "just didn't have any." Utter nonsense.

Well, I suppose being so wicked that they needed destroying was utterly ridiculous too. Yet, we know that Sodom was destroyed for sins that included same sex relations. That doesn't make kids. How many kids were brought on the ark?? Think about it! There were several families and NO kids!!!! Noah's kids were hundreds of years old!! The evidence truly mounts. We could be onto something here. Good work.

Once again your hubris and blasphemy is showing. So, if I accuse YOU of a ridiculous, nonsensical suggestion, like "maybe they didn't have any kids 'cause they wuz all sinners," then I am accusing God, huh? No, dad. I am accusing YOU. You are Not God!

Someone claimed God killed the kids in the flood. That needs support. Grow some.

 

[Orogeny]

Look it wasn't me that brought it up. How do we determine what changed? You tell us, if you have some relevant point.

Yes it was. You brought up 'rate of evolution' and then couldn't define what it meant. You don't know, so the crap that you spew about 'faster evolution after the flood' is a load of malarkey until you can define what exactly a rate of evolution is. It will still be a load of malarkey even if you can define it, because you would then have to prove that there was in fact a flood as described in the bible. I suspect you will fail on both counts. But feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[dad]

Yes it was. You brought up 'rate of evolution' and then couldn't define what it meant. You don't know, so the crap that you spew about 'faster evolution after the flood' is a load of malarkey until you can define what exactly a rate of evolution is. It will still be a load of malarkey even if you can define it, because you would then have to prove that there was in fact a flood as described in the bible. I suspect you will fail on both counts. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Calm down. Evolving involves changes. The changes can be large or small. It happened after the flood, as well as before. Is there something in your noggin that you think is too large or small a change to have happened, that you have evidence for? If not, dry up.

 

[Orogeny]

Not even going to try, huh? Somehow I'm not surprised.

 

[AV1611VET]

* BUMP *

What babies?

 

[laconicstudent]

All those babies and newborns that hadn't done anything wrong, but still drowned in the flood along with their parents, I should imagine.

 

[AV1611VET]

All those babies and newborns that hadn't done anything wrong, but still drowned in the flood along with their parents, I should imagine.

Were you there? and can you describe them?

Were they half-human/half-angel? did they have syphilis, gonorrhea, or various STDs? aren't they all in Heaven now? were they bred for consumption? experiments? slave labor?

Let's skip the sordid details, and let me ask you this?

Is Genesis 6 even in your bible?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Were you there? and can you describe them?

Were they half-human/half-angel? did they have syphilis, gonorrhea, or various STDs? aren't they all in Heaven now? were they bred for consumption? experiments? slave labor?

Let's skip the sordid details, and let me ask you this?

Is Genesis 6 even in your bible?

Talk about reading things into the Bible that aren't there? It doesn't say every wickedness that you can imagine. It says

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"

But remember this is a god who considered eating cheesburger or a ham sandwich or shrimp or lobster abomination.

Now I do realize that your version of God had some really nasty sons who mated with women but I didn't realize how nasty His kids and grandkids really were. No wonder his bungled up creation was so hopelessly messed up that he decided to murder everything with a big flood and start over.

 

[Split Rock]

Yet, we know that Sodom was destroyed for sins that included same sex relations. That doesn't make kids. How many kids were brought on the ark?? Think about it! There were several families and NO kids!!!! Noah's kids were hundreds of years old!! The evidence truly mounts. We could be onto something here.

What babies?

Were you there? and can you describe them?

Were they half-human/half-angel? did they have syphilis, gonorrhea, or various STDs? aren't they all in Heaven now? were they bred for consumption? experiments? slave labor?

Yes, thats right, folks. The Bible says all of the following at the same time about man just before The Flood:

1. There were no children.
2. The only sexual relationships were homosexual, because those are the only types of sexual relationships that are sinful.
3. The children were killed, but were half-angel, so it was OK.
4. The children were killed, but they all had STDs, so it was OK.
5. The children were killed, but they are all in heaven now, so it was OK.
6. The children were killed, but they were bred for consumption, experiments and slave labor, so it was OK.

I have a few more to add, since...well... anything goes and is still God's Inerrant Word:

7. The children were all from Neptune, so it was OK.
8. The children were all half-goat, since bestiality was rampant, so it was OK.
9. There were no children, because the cabbage patches were over run by sinful rabbits.
10. There were no children, since all the storks were murderd by sinful half-angelic trolls.

Feel free to add your own made up fantasies, since they are all The Truth.

 

[Orogeny]

All the children were killed, but they looked like William Shatner, so it was OK.

am i doin it rite?

 

[Split Rock]

All the children were killed, but they looked like William Shatner, so it was OK.

am i doin it rite?

*Hint* There really isn't any way of doing it wrong! Let your imagination run wild! It's all God's Inerrant Word!

 

[Freodin]

Well, if there weren´t any babies, because all those sinfull people didn´t get any / killed those who were there.... why bother with a flood?

Just wait another 120 years and the problem got solved in a natural way.


But perhaps that also solves the riddle of why there aren´t any remains of people killed in the flood found yet.

Gen 6:7 should read fully: "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; which would consist of old geezer Blablalech and his pesky Mother-In-Law, the Joneses from Kentucky, and the abominable couple from Poland whose name I cannot pronounce."

 

[Orogeny]

Haha. Freakin' Poland. Who do they think they are?

 

[BananaSlug]

Someone claimed God killed the kids in the flood. That needs support. Grow some.

The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." Hosea 9:11-16

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." Ezekiel 9:5

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT

Based on the above verses I'm sure God had no problem killing babies in the flood. You are just not wanting to accept the fact that God would kill babies and little children.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." Hosea 9:11-16

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children." Ezekiel 9:5

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT


Based on the above verses I'm sure God had no problem killing babies in the flood. You are just not wanting to accept the fact that God would kill babies and little children.

Not to mention the first born in Egypt and the genocide of the Amalekites.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Richard Dawkins.

 

[AV1611VET]

Based on the above verses I'm sure God had no problem killing babies in the flood. You are just not wanting to accept the fact that God would kill babies and little children.

So if God didn't do it, who does that leave? untamed glorified apes?

Does the "fact" that we are glorified apes mean we don't have the right to be feral?

Didn't Klebold and Harris go feral, while evolutionists stood around wondering what happened?

You do realize that "glorified ape" is an oxymoron, don't you?

We're all supposed to act "glorified", but when the "ape" part rears its ugly head, evolutionists scratch their hind ends and act like they don't know what caused it.

Earthquake in Haiti?

How DARE anyone suggest God did it; but mother nature did it? no problem -- we fully understand.

 

[Split Rock]

So if God didn't do it, who does that leave? untamed glorified apes?

Does the "fact" that we are glorified apes mean we don't have the right to be feral?

Didn't Klebold and Harris go feral, while evolutionists stood around wondering what happened?

You do realize that "glorified ape" is an oxymoron, don't you?

We're all supposed to act "glorified", but when the "ape" part rears its ugly head, evolutionists scratch their hind ends and act like they don't know what caused it.

Earthquake in Haiti?

How DARE anyone suggest God did it; but mother nature did it? no problem -- we fully understand.

How does diatribe against the term "glorified apes," (which no one brought up before in this thread anyway) address the question of whether God killed babies in the Flood? It doesn't.