Spoony the Pussy One: Life is in the Render Queue

[Jesus]

Historicity of Jesus /= The Bible is factual

2/10, made me reply

Wow you havent stopped proving what a moron you are. you dont think the 2 are connected? X FUCKKING D
What drugs do you do mate? Stop at once theyre rotting away your brains.

Just for your retarded drooling face then replace "jesus" in that text with "the bible" and it still holds true. In fact why dont you take your braindead ass to a professor tomorrow who will tell you yes you were an idiot for not believing this person. Anyone who is even a bit schooled knows its one of the most credible sources that has ever been around.


you must be one of those clown ass faggots who believe Leonidas from the spartan movie 300 is real without knowing there are 3423534645 more sources of jesus (and the bible before you start again) than your retarded historic "heroes" that give you a hollywood boner.

Fucking retard zombie no wonder trannies can take over so easily and the world is going to shit.

It's OK, Jesus never existed, Bible is just a collection of folk tales and religion was created as a tool to control society, everyone knows it, you know it too in your heart, just take a few seconds to actually think and you will too see the truth as the rest of us normal, rational people.

[AngrySpoonySnob]

Sad thing is.... he, unlike you here, was actually serious and not just trying to get another response.

[Guest]

So,ASS , how old is the earth?

[Guest]

Also,are dinosaurs real? Never read about those the bible

[AngrySpoonySnob]

So,ASS , how old is the earth?

Nobody knows besides the holy father, its not what science says (do they still say 65 million years? Changes yearly what they think it seems) and its not 6k years either whereever that theory comes from.

As for the post about dinosaurs, no idea why you are suddenly firing all kinds of retarded questions at me. Did I ever say I knew everything about everything? Fuck no I just said its a mainsteam accepted view by scholars that the bible is the most credible historic source. Im not here to educate you faggots just to laugh at you for saying retarded shit and put you in your place.

Why the fuck would I even care about dinosaurs??? They ARE in the bible btw maybe you should read it again. The offspring of the fallen angels took all kinds of forms and there are creatures described in the bible that at least seem to have the size of dinosaurs. Can you braindead people please stop spouting nonsense if you have never even read the bible?

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

Also,are dinosaurs real? Never read about those the bible

They're the Canaanites. They called Moses "The Comet" because it took him so goddamn long to get there..

[AngrySpoonySnob]

Job 40:15-24 King James Version (KJV)
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.


Sounds like a Brontosaurus to me

[rabidtictac]

So the giant feathered chicken lizards were actually angels?

I dunno if you know ASS, but we can date the age of the earth by dating... The actual earth. The dates change because no dating system is going to get down to the minute with such massive numbers. They give a rough field usually and we cross-date using multiple methods. There are so many different dating methods, and they all pretty well cross-confirm each other when it comes to broad strokes such as the age of rocks.

People like Bint Hovind like to point to examples of when carbon dating (which is only one specific dating type of many) got something wrong. Usually because what they were dating had more or less carbon in it than it normally should have. There are many reasons an object could have more or less carbon in it. I don't remember exactly how that happens, but what's important is that Hovind was pulling out examples from scientific journals where the people POSTING the examples knew very well the reasons for the anomalous dates. The examples were given in those journos to show how a carbon dating sample might give an incorrect date, and why. But that's only one type of dating and there are many. Carbon dating is used for a specific date range and, as long as the sample hasn't been messed with to artificially (I say artificially, but I mean via the environment or something weird happening) reduce or increase the level of carbon that should naturally be in the sample, carbon dating can be reasonably accurate. But there's potassium-argon and other kinds of dating too. I just don't remember all the different types, sorry. Certain types are better aka more accurate with a smaller or larger date range. It depends.

The age of the earth is pretty well known and accepted science at this point. If you'd believe the guys who built your microwave to understand that, you should believe the age of the earth because we know that as well as we know how microwave radiation works imo. Age of the earth/geography isn't some experimental new field of science where the answers are all unknown. Whatever we don't know yet is clearly understood as an unknown field, and what is known is known as well as it can be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

1. St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.543 ± 0.019 billion years
2. Sm-Nd isochron 4.55 ± 0.33 billion years
3. Rb-Sr isochron 4.51 ± 0.15 billion years
4. Re-Os isochron 4.68 ± 0.15 billion years
2. Juvinas (basaltic achondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.556 ± 0.012 billion years
2. Pb-Pb isochron 4.540 ± 0.001 billion years
3. Sm-Nd isochron 4.56 ± 0.08 billion years
4. Rb-Sr isochron 4.50 ± 0.07 billion years
3. Allende (carbonaceous chondrite)
1. Pb-Pb isochron 4.553 ± 0.004 billion years
2. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.52 ± 0.02 billion years
3. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.55 ± 0.03 billion years
4. Ar-Ar age spectrum 4.56 ± 0.05 billion years

Dates change as we come to understand more and your research is given time to accumulate and cross-confirm or disprove itself. A date changing in science is a good thing, because our knowledge is increasing. The bibble and other holy books throw out numbers with authority and then leave it to those descendants who still believe to rationalize how the Holy Infallible Truth fits with known science. They would be better off working the other way and figuring out how to integrate their religious beliefs with known science. Science and morality are not really related in any way, because morality refers to relationships between beings. Those are necessarily dictated by a myriad of factors which are not impartial.

[AngrySpoonySnob]

So the giant feathered chicken lizards were actually angels?

Thats not what I said so I stopped reading there.

edit: I skimmed through it scrolling down and it seems you have the notion that even if their satanic science wasnt all fake and the earth is indeed 65 mil years old that somehow makes the bible wrong? How so?

Wether the world is 100s of billions years old or 10 years doesnt change anything.

[rabidtictac]

Nice excuse to read my shitpost and ignore my info dump about something completely unrelated to dinosaurs.