Raf

Cloverfield

Well, the Exorcist was not New York, and the sequels, dreadful as they were, did actually seem to be actual sequels. Same with the Godfather, though even the bad sequel was pretty good. So, a movie that takes place in New York, with a sort-of-sequel that prominently features an underground set... OH!

And you're wrong. And let's save time: Your second guess is wrong too.

Thanks. I'm not going to let this one drag out. Next clue will be a giveaway, although if you take a step back, the first one is a giveaway already.

If I'm right, great. If I'm wrong, ignore. Name the Actor: Jefferson Smith Wyatt Earp Ben McKenna McCaulay Connor Ransom Stoddard

Not sure why I didn't answer this yesterday, but Sam Carmichael was the giveaway for me. Of course, hearing this guy sing was the equivalent of having my ears involuntarily pierced. Get it!?!?! Never hire someone named PIERCE to sing. Brosnan. Pierce Brosnan.

Because they are indicators that this story is bull. People don't live to be 480 years old, start a 120-year construction project, have a kid or three, endure a worldwide (literally or from his perspective) catastrophe, survive it, then live another couple of hundred years.

Do I want indisputable proof that a hyperbaric atmosphere existed 10,000 years ago, and that such a condition in the atmosphere would account for 900-year lifespans? Yeah. And I don't think that's asking too much. What I DO think asks too much is when pseudoscientific know-nothings throw words around hoping that their audiences are too stupid to call them on their bulls hit, expecting people to accept the possibility without a SCRAP of supporting evidence, citing articles written by other know-nothings who link to articles that actually disprove their f-ing case. And yeah, I'm far more educated than iron and bronze age goatherders who thought the sky was a dome holding back a wall of water. I thought you were, too, for a minute there.

This is, of course, the pot calling the kettle black. It's obvious that you've been here to throw sh*t at this discussion to see what sticks, and to promote your own religious beliefs at the expense of an actual analysis of the evidence. You repeatedly come here and declare things to be so despite the evidence weighing against your position (ie, I'm more sure of the existence of Adam and Eve than I am of George Washington: NO ONE who takes these things seriously believes your statement to that effect was correct -- you were either being dishonest or dumb as a brick). Oh, for those checking: The "hyperbaric conditions" that existed prior to the flood existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. The flood is alleged to have happened roughly 5,000 years ago. You cannot argue with a straight face that Methuselah lived to be 969 years old because of the oxygen content in the atmosphere 190,000 years before he was born. Hyperbaric conditions do not prolong life by hundreds of years. If you think they do, by all means, show the research and collect your Nobel Prize. Stop relying on pseudoscientific websites that prop up religion by misrepresenting science to gullible audiences. I do hope you keep your promise to be done with this thread unless you decide to change your approach and get real about the evidence and what it shows. Equating your wishful thinking with evidence has derailed this thread long enough. Change your diaper.

By the way, specific references to specific world leaders don't automatically make the stories credible. They just help. Knowing Jesus' crucifixion took place under Pontius Pilate, for example, leads the overwhelming majority of scholars to believe Jesus was a real person who was really executed. But knowing that Forrest Gump met Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, not to mention Elvis Presley, John Lennon and Dick Cavett, does not make Gump any more real. But maybe Gump did exist, because we all know there was a war in Vietnam and a lot of soldiers fought and survived it. Some of them even earned Purple Hearts.

Sorry Bolshevik. Bottom line is, moving on from the flood... We are actually given Sarah's age, at least indirectly. She is nine years younger than Abraham (he was 99 years old when Isaac was born, she was 90). So in Genesis 12, when it says Abraham was 75 years old, we can deduce that Sarah was 66, give or take a year in either direction depending on the time of the year and the months of their births. So anyway, even today there are women in their 60s who can be quite attractive. Interestingly, we are not told who the Pharoah is who took Sarah as a concubine. I know, curious, right? Why doesn't the Bible name its Pharoahs? Or Noah's wife? So Pharoah finds out that Sarah is actually Abraham's wife, and he gives her back to lift the curse God apparently placed on Egypt. See, because Sarah was Abraham's wife, God inflicted Pharoah and his house with serious diseases. The Bible doesn't say how Pharoah discovered this information. When my family gets sick, I assume there's something going around. I don't think, hey, maybe woman number 7 that I'm sleeping with is married to another man and Yahweh, in whom, by the way, I don't believe, is smiting me. I'd better give this guy his property wife back. In any event, he tells Abraham to scram, and Abraham does. Actual error? You tell me. Personally, I think authenticity is poorly served by an anonymous Pharoah in this (and every subsequent) Bible story. We're supposed to believe this is not relevant information? Mind you, the names and ages of each person in the family tree from Shem to Abraham is relevant. But he name of the Pharoah who violated Sarah was not? Interesting that this bit of information would place the described events in history, whereas omitting it... does not. So I'm not going to say "Actual Error" here, because it's not. It's an unverifiable story that lacks credibility for a few reasons, but is not completely outside the realm of possibility. A credible story would have given years that could be cross referenced (this happened when Abraham was 75. That's precision. What year of which Pharaoh's reign was it? (And please don't say the author of Genesis would not know this information because the author is God, remember?) By the way, we learn in Genesis 20 that Abraham and Sarah really ARE brother and sister -- they have the same father, though not the same mother. Sarah's mother was who cares she's just some woman not named.

I was going for subtlety, but okay. By the way, if you're ever on a diet, don't get any of those sugar free cookies. Blech. Between tasteless and nasty, these dietetic cookies.

Whoever wrote that garbage probably should have considered another line of work.

You guys seriously need a diaper change. No, I am not simply repeating that the flood never happened. Multiple protestations were brought up, examined and discarded as factually without basis. To suggest that the Biblical flood happened because it might be referring to a different flood that is not described in the Bible is your prerogative, but it's kind of like saying Spider-Man really happened because spider bites happen. I do not have the burden of reviewing every spider bite to disprove that it is the origin of the Spider-Man story. You are under the obligation to find the one that resulted in Spider-Man. More to the point, it's like saying a particular man raped a particular woman because there have been cases of men raping women. Yes, there have been cases. Many cases. But that doesn't make each allegation something that "actually happened" just because other cases did. [Note to other mods: this is not even REMOTELY about politics]. If I concoct a fictional rape for a fictional story, the fact that there were non-fictional rapes in my community, in my state or in my country does not confer a benefit of the doubt on the fictional rape I concocted so that you must assume it really happened unless someone demonstrates otherwise. Likewise, I am not obliged to examine every regional flood to discover the origin of the Bible's fictional story. You have the burden of finding a flood that matches the description in the Bible. You won't find one. There was a very good attempt, but it fell short on the facts (it did not cover anything that could even remotely be referred to as "the mountains of Ararat"). The fact that other cultures had flood stories centuries before Genesis was written only proves that the author of Genesis borrowed the story -- not that the flood of Genesis actually happened. It actually weighs AGAINST the notion that the Genesis flood actually happened. So if you don't mind, we're now at Abraham and for some reason you insist on going back to the Flood that never happened, and at this point in the discussion it is derailing.

That would make some sense if Genesis were written centuries after it was alleged to have been written. That's a problem for authenticity, though. The flood never took place. We've been over that ad nauseum, and simply declaring it to be my supposition doesn't make it so. It is a documentable fact that there was never a worldwide flood, and it is a documentable fact that there was never any regional flood of sufficient size and impact to match the description in Genesis. There most certainly were regional floods, but nothing that would have carried the ark to the mountains of Ararat. If you have evidence of extreme hyperbaric conditions that existed after the flood resulting in 300-year lifespans in that region of the world between 4,000 and 5,000 years ago, please present that evidence. Until then, you are throwing crap at this thread to see what sticks, and it's getting annoying. Evidence, or shut up already.