The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Will people stop making threads concering Forest Fan? He is not making any effort to look at other people's views, so there is really no need to make topics, as he already had his mind made up, and of course, he's always right because he believes in God.
So yeh, he is ruining this forum, leave him.
So yeh, he is ruining this forum, leave him.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> Talking to yourself?
No, to you, seeing as you regulary repost entire posts, sometimes pages long, and add only a single sentence.
Plus, add to the fact you'll post entire articles where an url link will suffice, you'll see that the statement "Do you have to repost ALL that" is in fact you, calling the kettle, black.
Hence pot -> kettle -> black.
> Talking to yourself?
No, to you, seeing as you regulary repost entire posts, sometimes pages long, and add only a single sentence.
Plus, add to the fact you'll post entire articles where an url link will suffice, you'll see that the statement "Do you have to repost ALL that" is in fact you, calling the kettle, black.
Hence pot -> kettle -> black.
Talking to yourself?
Forest Fan wrote:
> Did you have to repost ALL that?
Pot -> Kettle -> black.
> Did you have to repost ALL that?
Pot -> Kettle -> black.
Did you have to repost ALL that?
Sorry about this for everyone else, but Forest Fan really is stupid:
Edgy wrote:
> Do you know what the word: "Hypothetical" means?
>
> I used a hypothetical situation. I used my estimation of your
> answers in that hypothetical situation.
>
> The next bit wasn't hypothetical though - I haven't changed anything
> you've said here at all:
>
> Respond.
>
>
> EdgyBecause you don't know when to give up.
>
> Forest FanI just have to share the Gospel, so when I meet Jesus I can
> say to
> Him, when He judges my life according to works, I can account for
> and
> say, "I told these people."
>
> Right. You've told us. We don't accept it but respect your decision
> to believe. No amount of repetition on your part will convince me
> otherwise. It will only to the opposite.
>
>
>
> EdgyI can do the same thing you're doing for any given situation. I
> can
> analyse any comment, quote or passage from a story and say how it
> could be true if I add more words to it.
>
> Forest FanBut the Bible is the Word of God, you are hearing the
> Lord's take on
> issues, His commentary on the World, past (Creation and afterwards),
> present (Beginning of End Times) and future (End of ages, rapture,
> judgement etc.)
>
> Funny that, as I thought it was the word of those doped up on various
> substances, as was common practise thousands of years ago...even
> hundreds of years ago, where visions were common. Have you ever read
> Kubla Khan?
>
>
>
> EdgyThe story generally told is that Noah and his wife took on board
> two
> of every living creature to save them from the great flood. This
> means that every creature alive now is a product of incest. It means
> that predators would have stopped their basic instincts to avoid
> killing each other. It means that the Ark would have had to be huge
> and have a power source able to generate hot and cold to keep the
> cold blooded, the polar, and various other animals alive.
>
> Forest FanThe ark was huge, it was not until about the 1800's that
> there
> actually was a ship, as large as the ark.
>
> And the issues on incest, the lack of extinction through predatorial
> acts, the lack of climates to allow the cold blooded creatures to
> survive, the lack of climates to allow the polar animals to survive,
> the fact that no matter how big the ship, it would have taken way too
> long for Noah to travel the entire Earth and save every single
> species, and so on.
>
>
>
>
> It would
> mean that all vegetation on the planet that can not survive under
> water would have 'drowned' and died off. The story isn't feasable.
>
> Of course, there are no parts of the story that contradict science,
> unlike Evolution.
>
>
> The points I have made above are scientific. Evolution is also
> scientific. I haven't studied Evolution enough to know all sides to
> the story, but all scientists know that science is about finding the
> truth, not masking it. After all, Romans believed the eyes project
> sight, and that's how they see, when infact it was the opposite, that
> light travels into the eyes. That is a mistake in what was then
> modern science that was corrected.
>
>
>
>
> Sure, you can try to tell me that Noah travelled the world before
> hand to find all the animals. You can try to tell me that the
> animals
> decided to all be friends. You can tell me that the Animals of
> Farthing Wood didn't actually make it to White Deer park, but I can
> tell you that the story has no real credability, whether it is in
> the
> Bible or not.
>
> It has perfect credibility, because the story is narrated by God
> through Moses.
>
> So how long do you think it would take to sail/row around the world
> with only two people aboard this ship?
Edgy wrote:
> Do you know what the word: "Hypothetical" means?
>
> I used a hypothetical situation. I used my estimation of your
> answers in that hypothetical situation.
>
> The next bit wasn't hypothetical though - I haven't changed anything
> you've said here at all:
>
> Respond.
>
>
> EdgyBecause you don't know when to give up.
>
> Forest FanI just have to share the Gospel, so when I meet Jesus I can
> say to
> Him, when He judges my life according to works, I can account for
> and
> say, "I told these people."
>
> Right. You've told us. We don't accept it but respect your decision
> to believe. No amount of repetition on your part will convince me
> otherwise. It will only to the opposite.
>
>
>
> EdgyI can do the same thing you're doing for any given situation. I
> can
> analyse any comment, quote or passage from a story and say how it
> could be true if I add more words to it.
>
> Forest FanBut the Bible is the Word of God, you are hearing the
> Lord's take on
> issues, His commentary on the World, past (Creation and afterwards),
> present (Beginning of End Times) and future (End of ages, rapture,
> judgement etc.)
>
> Funny that, as I thought it was the word of those doped up on various
> substances, as was common practise thousands of years ago...even
> hundreds of years ago, where visions were common. Have you ever read
> Kubla Khan?
>
>
>
> EdgyThe story generally told is that Noah and his wife took on board
> two
> of every living creature to save them from the great flood. This
> means that every creature alive now is a product of incest. It means
> that predators would have stopped their basic instincts to avoid
> killing each other. It means that the Ark would have had to be huge
> and have a power source able to generate hot and cold to keep the
> cold blooded, the polar, and various other animals alive.
>
> Forest FanThe ark was huge, it was not until about the 1800's that
> there
> actually was a ship, as large as the ark.
>
> And the issues on incest, the lack of extinction through predatorial
> acts, the lack of climates to allow the cold blooded creatures to
> survive, the lack of climates to allow the polar animals to survive,
> the fact that no matter how big the ship, it would have taken way too
> long for Noah to travel the entire Earth and save every single
> species, and so on.
>
>
>
>
> It would
> mean that all vegetation on the planet that can not survive under
> water would have 'drowned' and died off. The story isn't feasable.
>
> Of course, there are no parts of the story that contradict science,
> unlike Evolution.
>
>
> The points I have made above are scientific. Evolution is also
> scientific. I haven't studied Evolution enough to know all sides to
> the story, but all scientists know that science is about finding the
> truth, not masking it. After all, Romans believed the eyes project
> sight, and that's how they see, when infact it was the opposite, that
> light travels into the eyes. That is a mistake in what was then
> modern science that was corrected.
>
>
>
>
> Sure, you can try to tell me that Noah travelled the world before
> hand to find all the animals. You can try to tell me that the
> animals
> decided to all be friends. You can tell me that the Animals of
> Farthing Wood didn't actually make it to White Deer park, but I can
> tell you that the story has no real credability, whether it is in
> the
> Bible or not.
>
> It has perfect credibility, because the story is narrated by God
> through Moses.
>
> So how long do you think it would take to sail/row around the world
> with only two people aboard this ship?
Why do you need to know?
Do you know what the word: "Hypothetical" means?
I used a hypothetical situation. I used my estimation of your answers in that hypothetical situation.
The next bit wasn't hypothetical though - I haven't changed anything you've said here at all:
Respond.
>
Edgy> Because you don't know when to give up.
>
Forest Fan> I just have to share the Gospel, so when I meet Jesus I can say to
> Him, when He judges my life according to works, I can account for and
> say, "I told these people."
Right. You've told us. We don't accept it but respect your decision to believe. No amount of repetition on your part will convince me otherwise. It will only to the opposite.
>
Edgy> I can do the same thing you're doing for any given situation. I can
> analyse any comment, quote or passage from a story and say how it
> could be true if I add more words to it.
>
Forest Fan> But the Bible is the Word of God, you are hearing the Lord's take on
> issues, His commentary on the World, past (Creation and afterwards),
> present (Beginning of End Times) and future (End of ages, rapture,
> judgement etc.)
Funny that, as I thought it was the word of those doped up on various substances, as was common practise thousands of years ago...even hundreds of years ago, where visions were common. Have you ever read Kubla Khan?
>
Edgy> The story generally told is that Noah and his wife took on board two
> of every living creature to save them from the great flood. This
> means that every creature alive now is a product of incest. It means
> that predators would have stopped their basic instincts to avoid
> killing each other. It means that the Ark would have had to be huge
> and have a power source able to generate hot and cold to keep the
> cold blooded, the polar, and various other animals alive.
>
Forest Fan> The ark was huge, it was not until about the 1800's that there
> actually was a ship, as large as the ark.
And the issues on incest, the lack of extinction through predatorial acts, the lack of climates to allow the cold blooded creatures to survive, the lack of climates to allow the polar animals to survive, the fact that no matter how big the ship, it would have taken way too long for Noah to travel the entire Earth and save every single species, and so on.
>
> It would
> mean that all vegetation on the planet that can not survive under
> water would have 'drowned' and died off. The story isn't feasable.
>
> Of course, there are no parts of the story that contradict science,
> unlike Evolution.
>
The points I have made above are scientific. Evolution is also scientific. I haven't studied Evolution enough to know all sides to the story, but all scientists know that science is about finding the truth, not masking it. After all, Romans believed the eyes project sight, and that's how they see, when infact it was the opposite, that light travels into the eyes. That is a mistake in what was then modern science that was corrected.
> Sure, you can try to tell me that Noah travelled the world before
> hand to find all the animals. You can try to tell me that the
> animals
> decided to all be friends. You can tell me that the Animals of
> Farthing Wood didn't actually make it to White Deer park, but I can
> tell you that the story has no real credability, whether it is in
> the
> Bible or not.
>
> It has perfect credibility, because the story is narrated by God
> through Moses.
So how long do you think it would take to sail/row around the world with only two people aboard this ship?
I used a hypothetical situation. I used my estimation of your answers in that hypothetical situation.
The next bit wasn't hypothetical though - I haven't changed anything you've said here at all:
Respond.
>
Edgy> Because you don't know when to give up.
>
Forest Fan> I just have to share the Gospel, so when I meet Jesus I can say to
> Him, when He judges my life according to works, I can account for and
> say, "I told these people."
Right. You've told us. We don't accept it but respect your decision to believe. No amount of repetition on your part will convince me otherwise. It will only to the opposite.
>
Edgy> I can do the same thing you're doing for any given situation. I can
> analyse any comment, quote or passage from a story and say how it
> could be true if I add more words to it.
>
Forest Fan> But the Bible is the Word of God, you are hearing the Lord's take on
> issues, His commentary on the World, past (Creation and afterwards),
> present (Beginning of End Times) and future (End of ages, rapture,
> judgement etc.)
Funny that, as I thought it was the word of those doped up on various substances, as was common practise thousands of years ago...even hundreds of years ago, where visions were common. Have you ever read Kubla Khan?
>
Edgy> The story generally told is that Noah and his wife took on board two
> of every living creature to save them from the great flood. This
> means that every creature alive now is a product of incest. It means
> that predators would have stopped their basic instincts to avoid
> killing each other. It means that the Ark would have had to be huge
> and have a power source able to generate hot and cold to keep the
> cold blooded, the polar, and various other animals alive.
>
Forest Fan> The ark was huge, it was not until about the 1800's that there
> actually was a ship, as large as the ark.
And the issues on incest, the lack of extinction through predatorial acts, the lack of climates to allow the cold blooded creatures to survive, the lack of climates to allow the polar animals to survive, the fact that no matter how big the ship, it would have taken way too long for Noah to travel the entire Earth and save every single species, and so on.
>
> It would
> mean that all vegetation on the planet that can not survive under
> water would have 'drowned' and died off. The story isn't feasable.
>
> Of course, there are no parts of the story that contradict science,
> unlike Evolution.
>
The points I have made above are scientific. Evolution is also scientific. I haven't studied Evolution enough to know all sides to the story, but all scientists know that science is about finding the truth, not masking it. After all, Romans believed the eyes project sight, and that's how they see, when infact it was the opposite, that light travels into the eyes. That is a mistake in what was then modern science that was corrected.
> Sure, you can try to tell me that Noah travelled the world before
> hand to find all the animals. You can try to tell me that the
> animals
> decided to all be friends. You can tell me that the Animals of
> Farthing Wood didn't actually make it to White Deer park, but I can
> tell you that the story has no real credability, whether it is in
> the
> Bible or not.
>
> It has perfect credibility, because the story is narrated by God
> through Moses.
So how long do you think it would take to sail/row around the world with only two people aboard this ship?
If you don't make stuff up about me, you won't have to use it again.
Note: I haven't used the word "DUHHHHH!" since I was in primary school. Please don't make me use it again.
HYPOTHETICAL!
DUHHH!
DUHHH!
Page: