[That is a ridiculous thing to say about Abe Lincoln. There is far more evidence to support that he existed.]
Prove it! It's very easy to say, but very hard to prove. And don't give me history books, because the people that wrote the history book could be lying. So, thats not a good source of information. Scientist are just now discovering that there actually was a world-wide flood. Don't talk about something you don't know about.
47 comments
Such a shame that if you point out that the babble was written by people who could have been lying, fundies tell you you're wrong. But they have no problem using that same arguement for anything that goes against the babble, like history, or science, or simple common sense :P
1. Contemporary historical sources attest to his existence.
"Redefine everything that contradicts your "truth!" History is fluid!
"Scientist are just now discovering that there actually was a world-wide flood. Don't talk about something you don't know about."
In addition to all the myriad documentary evidence (literally freakin' TONS of it), I have just one word: Photographs .
And don't give me history books, because the people that wrote the history book could be lying.
In addition to what McCulloch & David D.G. said, I'd point out that the accounts written of Jesus were just of his birth and the last years of his life, written long after his death, by unknown persons of whom we have no other evidence. Of Lincoln we have histories and biographies following Lincoln from birth to death, by known authors of whom we have many other writings by which to test their reliabilities.
Scientist are just now discovering that there actually was a world-wide flood. if you look in your fish tank fish float when they die and then sink when they rot, so this cannot happen normally. - That right there is common bullshit that idiots eats up, but is easily explained by science and at that point I couldn't take it another second.
So,let me summarise. A book written centuries and centuries after the facts it tells(the Bible)is infallible. A book of history, written from contemporary evidence and scholar dedication can be a lie. It sticks out you´re a teenager and a stupid one for that matter.
Prove it! It's very easy to say, but very hard to prove. And don't give me the Bible, because the people that wrote the Bible could be lying, so thats not a good source of information. Don't talk about something you don't know about.
Don't talk about something you don't know about. Scientist are just now discovering that there actually was a world-wide flood.
Impossible. No, I mean that literally. A world-wide flood is, in the most literal of senses, impossible.
@Nostromo
Wow! Read the whole thread, it's a gem!Mary is the head of your church if you're Catholic. Those guys know even less about catholicism than they do about history!
They're even asserting this to a Catholic poster , and telling him that he doesn't know anything about his own beliefs.
Don't talk about something you don't know about.
...uh, actually, that Abe Lincoln existed is impossible to "prove", in a strict logical sense.
Belated congratulations going out to the massive conspiracy that created and perpetrated the Myth of Abraham Lincoln. Wow! A gullible America has believed for over 150 years now that there was a bearded man from Illinois who actually became president, led the U.S. to victory during a bloody war and was killed. What attention to detail! The history books, the alterations of the Congressional Record, the (phony) Lincoln-Douglass debates, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Gettysburg Address, the erection of the Lincoln Memorial, the faces on all the pennies and $5-bills: Bravo! It makes whatever conspiracy may exist about JFK's death look pathetic.
*head-scratch*
Let me get this straight.
History books, who have direct descendants traceable to events in question are suspect and should be shunned. But a book that makes extraordinary, illogical, wild claims should be taken without question. Gotcha.
Dude, I'm CANADIAN, and I know he existed. As far as their being evidence for a world-wide flood...Sure, of course there was one. It has a special name. We call it the ICE AGE.
The Bible is just one book, there is no other contemporary source that corroborates it.
That murder is not so long ago, all things considered. My grandparent's grandparents could have lived around the time when he was murdered.
You don't exist, missions2005. You could be a cleverly coded bot, for all we know.
...oh, and as for proof, Lincoln's remains. As with Ramses II. Now show me Jesus's remains.
...thought not.
The ancient Chinese civilisation existed during Biblical times. They were sticklers for record-keeping (natch). Their civilisation lasted beyond Jesus & co. Funny then, that in their detailed and comprehensive records/histories etc, there isn't one mention of a cataclysmic, civilisation-destroying 'Flood'.
Funny, that. And not in a 'Funny-ha-ha' way, neither.
Don't talk about something you don't know about. But then, you know nothing . Period.
"Scientist are just now discovering that there actually was a world-wide flood."
Your English teacher called, she said you are a liar and you didn't do well in her class either.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
