The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
So yeh, enlighten me...
> And that's where we got to.
> Explain:
> 1) Why we have giraffes if (according to Archangel - your
> Bible-buddy) if no animal on the ark was more than the size of a
> sheep.
When did Archangel, ever, ever say that no and I quote 'no' animal on the ark was more than the size of a sheep?
> 2) How do you explain your idea that he took small animals on the
> ark, which later grew bigger (off the ark) - when they were
> fully-grown adults all the while.
They could have babies, but I would expect young giraffes that grew, as a supposed to older giraffes, but I would have to check first.
But kinda cute, in your own retarded kind of a way.
But mostly stupid, and annoying.
Anywho, the conversation (last night, remember - less than a day ago) went like this:
Archangel wrote:
> 1. As far as your question, Light, Dr. Willmington also says that no
> animal would be over the size of a sheep (overall average) boarded
> the ark.
It was then asked how we have giraffes now, if nothing was over the size of a sheep. I'd add how they got dinosaurs on there as well.
Then you said they could have been smaller giraffes, then got bigger outside the ark.
So I proposed that Noah only took baby animals aboard the ark.
Which you then diagreed with most strongly.
Upon which I commented - then how the hell did they grow outside the ark without moving from babies to adults.
And that's where we got to.
Explain:
1) Why we have giraffes if (according to Archangel - your Bible-buddy) if no animal on the ark was more than the size of a sheep.
2) How do you explain your idea that he took small animals on the ark, which later grew bigger (off the ark) - when they were fully-grown adults all the while.
Capiche?
You really make people work for some answers, don't you?
*sigh*
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> And they would have grown if they were babies.
> And if they weren't babies, then how do you explain:
>
> Archangel wrote:
> 1. As far as your question, Light, Dr. Willmington also says that no
> animal would be over the size of a sheep (overall average) boarded
> the ark.
>
> ?
You managed to COMPLETELY IGNORE the ACTUAL point of my post. AMAZING.
You really are a wriggly scamp. Picking up on the b******t details to aviod any real issues.
RAARRGGGHHH
> FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> When did 40 days become a year?
>
> The rain came down for 40 days and 40 nights. However the flooding
> was so great, that took about a year for the flooding to subside
> enough for Noah and his family to leave the ark.
I see you've conveniently ignored the needed explanation of Archangel's quote, which was in the same post as the one you quoted from.
> Where's Forest Fan?
Here...
> When did 40 days become a year?
The rain came down for 40 days and 40 nights. However the flooding was so great, that took about a year for the flooding to subside enough for Noah and his family to leave the ark.
> It's a couple of nurofen
Second coincidence of day.
me too, but my headache hasnt gone away and sore throat is living hapilly in teh badgurland.
Bah, stupid sunday, tomorrow off?
am maybu
Where's Forest Fan?
Or is he just letting flaws sink so he can spout again?