Do you want the real truth or not?

by Jason 175 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jason

  RedhorseWoman,

  If you're going to be rude and ignorant about this discussion we can call it quits. But personally I'd rather continue. You tell me I haven't proven anything, you're right. I don't see how you want me to prove that what I believe is true in just a few posts on the internet. And sorry but I can't prove anything beyond a SHADOW of a doubt. Especially to someone who doesn't want to consider the possibility that there might be something to it. but if you actually listened I may be able to prove something beyond a REASONABLE doubt. You like to put words in my mouth and like what you believe is fact. Though it's obvious you never scrutinize your own beliefs like you scrutinize mine. Believe me (though I doubt you will), I put my beliefs to the test all the time. You try to argue creation by spouting evolution. All you're doing is assuming evolutionists know the truth. Why would you assume that instead of Creation? Are you just following the crowd? I too used to believe evolution was a proven fact of life. But then I learned how to think instead of what to think. And believe me, I know one of you out there will quote me and twist my words to shoot me down but it doesn't make a difference. If you can't handle hearing an alternative to what you already assume true it's not my problem.

  I will answer the rest of your questions in my next post. I'm a little busy at the moment.

  Jason.
• 

  dedalus

  And sorry but I can't prove anything beyond a SHADOW of a doubt.

  Er, so there isn't exactly any "real truth," is there, Jason?

  Dedalus
• 

  Jason

  See dedalus,

  I must know something because I accurately predicted that you would twist my words to use them against me. But you obviously didn't read the whole post. I can't prove something beyond a doubt because I can't prevent your mind from doubting even an a proven fact. But I can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt. Try actually reading what I write, not what you want me to write.

  Jason.
• 

  larc

  Jason,

  I don't understand why you called Red Horse Woman rude and ignorant. She simply asked you some legitimate questions. Now, I am going to ask some follow up questions, based on her repeated requests for you to consider the dimensions of the Ark.

  Please go back to the book of Genesis and calculate the size of the Ark and take into account the number of levels therein. Now consider the length of time that 8 people and all of the animals were in the ark. Now, find a referrence that tells the total number of species of: mamals, marsupials, insects, and birds. Next, make a rough estimate of how much food would have to be stored for all of these creatures while they were living together. I would be interested in your conclusions.

  Another thing you might want to consider. Today, we have fresh water fish that can not live in salt water and salt water fish that can not live in fresh water. During the flood, how did the salt water fish survive in diluted salt water and how did fresh water fish live in the presence of salt?

  I have a question: do you believe, as it states in Genesis that all animals living before the flood were vegetarians, i.e., no meat eaters?
• 

  dedalus

  I must know something because I accurately predicted that you would twist my words to use them against me.

  Where did you predict this? Show me.

  But you obviously didn't read the whole post.

  Somehow I managed to get through it.

  I can't prove something beyond a doubt because I can't prevent your mind from doubting even an a proven fact. But I can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.

  And what the hell is the difference between the two statements. "I can't prove something beyond a doubt, but I can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." It seems you arbitrarily decide what is and isn't a "reasonable" doubt.

  Try actually reading what I write, not what you want me to write.

  Try making your writing less ambiguous. Try defining your terms more precisely. Better yet, try having a coherent thought.

  Dedalus
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  Jason, I think it's very interesting that when someone raises questions for which you have no pat answers, you immediately resort to the ad hominem attacks. How, exactly, do you feel I'm being rude and ignorant?

  As I told you, I am not espousing ANY doctrine. You say,

  Though it's obvious you never scrutinize your own beliefs
  like you scrutinize mine. Believe me (though I doubt you will), I put my beliefs to the test all the time. You try
  to argue creation by spouting evolution. All you're doing is assuming evolutionists know the truth. Why would
  you assume that instead of Creation? Are you just following the crowd? I too used to believe evolution was a
  proven fact of life. But then I learned how to think instead of what to think.

  How did you come to the conclusion that I don't scrutinize my beliefs? I've never told you my beliefs. Nor have I tried to convince you of anything. YOU have stated that YOU have the TRUTH. YOU have told us that YOUR beliefs are TRUTH....irrefutable truth. I can see holes in this "truth", and I'm asking you legitimate questions.

  What you say simply makes no logical sense. As Larc stated, calculate the dimensions of the Ark and try to figure out what would fit as far as people, animals, and food. He hasn't even considered your additions of hundreds of species of dinosaurs, and huge mammals such as Aurochs, Mammoths, Mastodons, Saber-toothed cats, etc.

  We have three horses, and for them to make it through an average winter we store two hundred bales of hay, plus approximately one ton of grain. This supply is barely sufficient for 4 1/2 months. Do you realize how much area is taken up by this amount of forage?

  In one of your posts you stated that one dinosaur--ONE--would consume the equivalent of THIRTY TONS of herbage per DAY. Do you realize the amount of storage that would be necessary for that amount of forage for HUNDREDS of dinosaurs for OVER A YEAR? It boggles the mind.....truly. Yet, you seem to have NO problem with the logistics of this. Then, we need to add the forage for all of the regular-sized animals, and food for eight people.

  I still have trouble dealing with fragile artifacts surviving for a year submersed in brackish water. Especially since these caves show no evidence of having been underwater. Yet, you feel that asking this question is rude?

  As a matter of fact, I find your assumptions about MY beliefs to be extremely rude and arrogant. I HAVE NEVER in this discussion told you that you were wrong, nor have I asserted that I have the "truth". I have simply pointed out things that I find to be illogical in your assertions. Why should I be expected to believe something I find to be totally unrealistic? Especially since you can't back up any of your arguments with solid facts?
• 

  larc

  RHW,

  Thank you for the actual data for your three horses. It makes the food issue alone for even a few hundred animals to be overwhelming, let alone the thousands that would have to go onto the Ark. As I recall, there are over 100,000 species of birds alone that do not interbred. I think the problems are staggering for anyone who supports the Ark theory.

  The pattern here is very similiar to threads we have seen in the past. When the bearer of truth is faced with overwhelming contradictory evidence, they resort to name calling.
• 

  larc

  LDH and Mommie Dark,

  I thoroughly enjoyed your remarks. Like you, there is nothing that gets to me more than these self proclaimed bearers of "real truth". Lisa, you mentioned "the brilliant science lovers." We didn't even have the heavy hitters here, like AlanF and Amazing with their detailed knowledge of carbon and argon dating to show this guy a thing or two. Just some rudementary math, basic knowledge of specie numbers and the volume of food required was enough to bring Jason's "truth" to an end. It the bearer of truth can't pull it off a CD, he can't answer.
• 

  Jason

  larc/ redhorsewoman,

  Show me where I "resorted to name calling." But now it is clear that though you don't trust anyone who claims to know truth you seem to trust AlanF and Amazing's arguments as truth. Yet you probably won't quiz them. And stop assuming I have no answer, some answers can't be answered thoroughly without at least a little research. You critisize my answers but when I ask you a question...no answer. You just say 'well, I don't claim to know the truth so I don't have to defend what I believe.'(not a direct quote).

  You haven't given me any actual evidence that the Noah's Ark scenario can't work. But as soon as someone asks a question about the feasibility of it all, somebody else says, 'Ha. We got him this time."

  I apologize if I have misjudged Redhorsewoman's attitude. But it's not like any of you have been real nice. Your self-righteousness is obvious in each post. You don't claim to know the truth yet you won't actually listen to an opinion contrary to the one you already have. Can't you just ask a question, wait for an answer, think about it, and then ask more questions when you don't understand? Without posting insulting messages about how everyone else but Jason is smart. You don't know me and you don't know what I know.

  You seem to get pretty defensive over the things you believe that you haven't claimed to be true. And don't expect me to know everything right off the top of my head. I wouldn't expect it of you in answering anything. If I'm busy for a couple days and can't spend every waking moment on my computer answering questions, don't assume I won't answer.

  And dedalus. This is where: "I know one of you out there will quote me and twist my words to shoot me down."
  You seem to need a lot of elongated explanations. I already told you the difference between a "shadow" of a doubt and a "reasonable" doubt.
  If you believe something "beyond any shodow of a doubt" that means you could never even force yourself to consider it may not be true. If you believed anything "beyond a shadow" people like you would say you are closed minded for not even considering anything else. (And yes, I consider other possibilities. But i have NEVER seen any real evidence for the alternatives. If i saw some real undeniable proof, i would change my mind. But so far the only evidence I can't deny is the evidence for Christ, the Bible, and God.) Continuing. "Beyond any reasonable doubt" means that you may doubt something for a moment but the evidence always proves your doubts foolish. I hope I helped you understand what I mean by "shadow" and "reasonable."

  Like I said, read all of it.

  Jason.
• 

  Farkel

  Jason,

  I apologize for not reading all of this thread, so if someone else mentioned this, I apologize. The plain truth is, you are a twit and a big bore.

  You said:

  : And what IS the BIGGEST animal. We ARE talking about land animal here. My guess would be a brachiasaurus.

  This alone shows your ignorance. What does "biggest animal" mean? It means "biggest animal," dummy. Jan didn't qualify it to mean only land animals. You, in your infinite wisdom made that determination. You aren't even capable of understanding simple, clear questions.

  The biggest animal on this planet is the Blue Whale, and I may be mistaken, but I believe it is the biggest animal that EVER lived on this earth.

  Farkel