25% of Americans are idiots

The plan is too perfect for there not to be a perfect planner. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

+100000000000000000

For several thousand years the bible was the only book that claimed a beginning
to the universe which is now termed Big Bang Cosmology. Science until very recently
thought the universe had no beginning and was not expanding, another theory was one
of a fluctuating universe, both theories have been proven wrong.

Score one for the superstitious book.

Scripture says that God stretches out the heavens like someone opening a tent,
the ever expanding universe.

If you have ever spent much time at all out in the sticks where the deer live you would know you find shed horns all the time. As far as I know all types of deer shed their horns. At least the ones around here do. The white tails and the muleys. There may be some exotics that don't but I would be surprised.

For several thousand years the bible was the only book that claimed a beginning
to the universe which is now termed Big Bang Cosmology. Science until very recently
thought the universe had no beginning and was not expanding, another theory was one
of a fluctuating universe, both theories have been proven wrong.

Score one for the superstitious book.

Scripture says that God stretches out the heavens like someone opening a tent,
the ever expanding universe. Originally Posted by bojulay

Tautolgy. The Bible doesn't claim those things. Your claims about Science only holds water if you count the 1920's as recently. Edwin Hubble presented his discovery galaxies outside the Milky Way and red shift in 1924.

The Bible on the other hand has two creation myths. The first is in Genesis 1, the second is in Genesis 2:4-25. They contradict each other. Genesis 1 says that humans were created after animals. Genesis 2 says animals were created after humans.The Bible says plants existed before the sun was created. The sun is kind of important to plants for photosynthesis and all. Those two chapters aren't signing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak.

The truth is the Bible was written by Bronze Age desert nomads. The Romans decided to give the Bible a rewrite at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Humans haven't changed, our societies and technology have, but indoctrination still proves to be a useful tool for controlling people.

http://www.bricktestament.com/home.html

Tautolgy. The Bible doesn't claim those things. Your claims about Science only holds water if you count the 1920's as recently. Edwin Hubble presented his discovery galaxies outside the Milky Way and red shift in 1924.

The Bible on the other hand has two creation myths. The first is in Genesis 1, the second is in Genesis 2:4-25. They contradict each other. Genesis 1 says that humans were created after animals. Genesis 2 says animals were created after humans.The Bible says plants existed before the sun was created. The sun is kind of important to plants for photosynthesis and all. Those two chapters aren't signing from the same hymn sheet, so to speak.

The truth is the Bible was written by Bronze Age desert nomads. The Romans decided to give the Bible a rewrite at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Humans haven't changed, our societies and technology have, but indoctrination still proves to be a useful tool for controlling people.

http://www.bricktestament.com/home.html Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

A simple google search will easily explain the 2 so-called contradictions:

Answer: Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of creation begins. The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. They do not disagree as to the order in which things were created and do not contradict one another. Genesis 1 describes the “six days of creation” (and a seventh day of rest), Genesis 2 covers only one day of that creation week—the sixth day—and there is no contradiction.

In Genesis 2, the author steps back in the temporal sequence to the sixth day, when God made man. In the first chapter, the author of Genesis presents the creation of man on the sixth day as the culmination or high point of creation. Then, in the second chapter, the author gives greater detail regarding the creation of man.

There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.

By considering the two creation accounts individually and then reconciling them, we see that God describes the sequence of creation in Genesis 1, then clarifies its most important details, especially of the sixth day, in Genesis 2. There is no contradiction here, merely a common literary device describing an event from the general to the specific.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/two-Crea...#ixzz2tpeI5UG4


Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water, causing several molecules to combine in a random way, which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. The Theory of Evolution claims that organic life was created from inorganic matter. That is impossible. The top scientists in the world with unlimited laboratory resources cannot change inorganic matter into a single organic living cell. The smallest living cell has the complexity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet airplane. The components of the smallest living cell have the obvious arrangement showing intelligent design, just as the Boeing 747 did not appear from random parts stacked near each other in a junk yard. The minimal cell contains more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The smallest single-cell creature has millions of atoms forming millions of molecules that must each be arranged in an exact pattern to provide the required functions. The cell has an energy-producing system, a protective housing, a security system to let molecules into and out of the housing, a reproductive system, and a central control system. This complexity required an intelligent design. It is much too complex to happen by chance - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-s....PyRtzwcR.dpuf

What's even funnier is that a large percentage of Americans would laugh at those who think the sun orbits the earth, yet they themselves believe all the nonsense in the bible (some dude named Moses spoke to a burning bush, parted the Red Sea, etc., etc., etc.). Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Wow. Several here are validating my post. I didn't expect that.

To paraphrase the essence of the dialogue: "... of course Earth orbits the Sun! But seriously, my book that says a mythological god created everything and this guy named Moses parted the Red Sea is for realz!"

Geez, listen to yourselves. You really buy into the book of fables over scientific research that learns more and gets stronger every day?

While this isn't a theological board (even though "OMG" pops up frequently), intelligence isn't necessarily negated by a belief system. If intelligence is high enough, it is easy to see and understand both science and religion.

Religion provides a coping mechanism when nothing else can explain or reduce the obstacles faced in life. Many of the teachings are simply good living advice - a moral code, so to speak. Otherwise, we have anarchy of behavioral patterns and become more similar in our actions to those of animals (of which we like to think we are the best of).

The most intelligent can recognize the need for both views and not scoff at those who adopt either one. Unfortunately, those are far fewer than the 75% the original survey in this thread suggests. Originally Posted by OldGrump

We can't know if there is intelligent design involved in our existence. Nobody can. It is way, way beyond the scope of science and human understanding. Learning more about the Big Bang and evolution doesn't rule out the possibility of a higher being. We call our Universe the 'Universe', but we're beginning to think that there might be multiple universes, just as we have learned that there are multiple galaxies.

I am however, quite sure that religion is man-made by primitive men to control other primitive men, and it boggles my mind that people are still able to be brainwashed by that nonsense. It tells me that our schools are teaching dogma and need to put a lot more focus on critical thinking and deductive reasoning.

The bible, for example, is full of superstitious nonsense, as were the Nordic, Greek, and Roman myths. As is the Quran.

So that is where I'm coming from. Not ruling out the possibility of a higher being, but definitely not buying into modern 'give me your money' religion. Oh, and I sure don't believe that there is a fatherly presence in the sky listening to prayers.

OldGrump, even though religion is generally oppressive, I acknowledge there is a positive side to it for some. For sure some people benefit from the community and sense of belonging, and take comfort from the idea that something might be listening to their thoughts and guiding their lives. That's positive for them, but it doesn't mean it's real.

Wow. Several here are validating my post. I didn't expect that.

To paraphrase the essence of the dialogue: "... of course Earth orbits the Sun! But seriously, my book that says a mythological god created everything and this guy named Moses parted the Red Sea is for realz!"

Geez, listen to yourselves. You really buy into the book of fables over scientific research that learns more and gets stronger every day? Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

again show me one evidence of evolution- yet you find it so hard to believe that humans were designed and not evolved. Again crocodiles according to scientist have been here for millions upon millions of years and basically have been unchanged- yet humans in just the last 100 years have gone to the moon, built computer designed and created huge buildings, computers, cars- yet crocodiles, lions, elephants and even chimpanzees have remained unchanged in these millions upon millions of years? Why is that?

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

I find it even funnier that you have some people who believe a big explosion instead of causing chaos which happen 100 percent of the time-created sustainable life form- oh don't let me stop there- the life form that was created just happened to evolve and happen to have everything it needed to survive- oxygen to breathe, water to drink, eyes to see, ears to hear- oh and wow isn't it so amazing that the majority of these life forms were created in pairs where they just happened to have the right organs to reproduce and continue their offspring- oh wait- if this was a random explosion and these creatures evolved- how did they know how to naturally reproduce? Yes some people believe this Charles Darwin dude when his theories have so many holes in them- ijs! Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Don't map creationist thinking into a scientific model. Nobody thinks that there was a big bang and then "ba-da-bing" earth was here and all it's inhabitants were wandering around going "WTF - how did I get here? What do we do now?" We KNOW our universe is expanding from a central point and becoming less dense. We know the direction that matter is moving in based on the shifting of the light waves we can now see, so we are able to triangulate a center point. The characteristics of the movement imply an explosion, and we are learning more all the time by questioning everything and evaluating new evidence.

Butterfly man- it's not even debatable that supernatural forces exist in various forms that science can't explain- are you telling me that every possession, ghost, apparaitions are just a figment of someone's imagination or made up hoaxes? ... Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

SPOILER ALERT! None of it is real.

I find it strange that even evolutionist doubt the existence of UFO's. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Every person I know that understands that evolution is real also believes that extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty. But that is not the same as believing in made-up UFO sightings and stories.

... If UFO's exist than angels exist- by definition Aliens are Aliens- beings not of this world. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

That's a hell of a leap in logic. Does that mean if UFOs exist, the man in the moon must be real too?

again show me one evidence of evolution- ... Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

The flu shots released each year are evidence of evolution. New versions are required each year because viruses evolve to survive, just like every other life form.

There is lots more evidence you'll find if you open your mind and do some research.

The flu shots released each year are evidence of evolution. New versions are required each year because viruses evolve to survive, just like every other life form.

There is lots more evidence you'll find if you open your mind and do some research. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Dude are you really serious with that analogy? When the flu virus evolves and becomes a living thing with legs/arms/fins/gills/wings/teeth/eyes than come talk to me. The viruses are not evolving- new strands come out due to resistance- different ball game than evolution. Give me an example of a non living thing that became a living thing- that's the basis of evolution is it not?

SPOILER ALERT! None of it is real.



Every person I know that understands that evolution is real also believes that extraterrestrial life is almost a statistical certainty. But that is not the same as believing in made-up UFO sightings and stories.





That's a hell of a leap in logic. Does that mean if UFOs exist, the man in the moon must be real too? Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Ok so by your logic every report of a UFO- even those from astronauts, U.S President/ air traffic pilots/ military men/ were all just lies???? So if those people believe that extraterrestrial life is a certainty than by default there's a good chance that those E.T's could possibly be far superior to us humans in nearly every aspect- strength, intelligence,speed, knowledge etc- if that's a remote possibility wouldn't you see these E.T's would be somewhat "supernatural"?

Wow. Several here are validating my post. I didn't expect that. Originally Posted by Lust4xxxLife

Of course you expected it. You hoped and knew it would happen. It happens every time you start in. You choose your words like "mythical being" and "book of fables" on purpose instead of saying "god" and "the bible" to try and belittle people who have faith and a different belief system than you. You do it every time.

Dude are you really serious with that analogy? When the flu virus evolves and becomes a living thing with legs/arms/fins/gills/wings/teeth/eyes than come talk to me. The viruses are not evolving- new strands come out due to resistance- different ball game than evolution. Give me an example of a non living thing that became a living thing- that's the basis of evolution is it not? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

No, that's not the basis of evolution AT ALL. And you're entire paragraph here just proves that you know nothing about the subject. So why do you sit here and argue about something that you nothing about?

Flu virus growing arms and legs? Lmao! Man I wasn't gonna say anything because I refuse to argue with a creationist, but the stupidity of that statement drove me to speak up. I'm not gonna sit here and play pigeon chess with you like some of the others, but why don't you actually go learn about the subject rather than argue about it on a hooker board, because if you think that a non living thing becoming a living thing is the basis of evolution, then you shouldn't be arguing about it. Period.