Aug 29 - Bill Nye The Science Guy Rips On American's Who Teach Creationism To Children

most viewed right now
 110
Steph Kegels
25 comments
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 74
NBA Isiah Thomas Says His Family was Worse than Lavar Ball "He Used to Rob Eve..
89 comments
@sports
most viewed right now
 72
Image(s) inside 50 cent Ex likes photo of his shooter Hommo on IG
80 comments
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 66
Nicki Minaj speaks up against White rappers taking over the charts
205 comments
@hiphop

section   (0 bx goons and 1 bystanders) Share this on Twitter   Share this on Facebook
 

Props Slaps
 5 years ago '10        #41
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 JordanWest86 said:
How is it so unreal that the bible failed to mention dinosaurs and their extinction. I dont understand how that one topic can be so unreal to you. There are many animals and things not mentioned in the bible. It is not a book of inventory made for everything on this earth and everything thats happened in this earth's existence.
You do know that creationist believe that dinosaurs NEVER existed right..


Here's what they believe.


[pic - click to view]



YES. That the "Devil" time traveled back in time and planted fossils to create doubt in the faith of mankind.

And they say this stuff with a straight face. This is the kind of stuff they have to say to try to and combat scientific discoveries that debunk their beliefs.
 5 years ago '07        #42
JordanWest86 23 heat pts23
space
avatar space
space
$3,841 | Props total: 2107 2107
 TheMindOf said:
You do know that creationist believe that dinosaurs NEVER existed right..


Here's what they believe.


[pic - click to view]



YES. That the "Devil" time traveled back in time and planted fossils to create doubt in the faith of mankind.

And they say this stuff with a straight face. This is the kind of stuff they have to say to try to and combat scientific discoveries that debunk their beliefs.
Lol my man been goin to church since I was 4, had pics of dinosaurs in my bible as a kid.
 5 years ago '11        #43
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 kevante said:

But the problem is that evolution and science discredits a lot of things creationists believe in, like the Earth only being 3000 years old, Humans being a result of evolution as opposed to being created by God, and then there's dinosaurs...

Basically, the old version of creationism has been debunked, and those clinging to it are in denial in the face of scientific and provable facts.




Evolution can be proven, but the mechanism in which it works is the theory. Just like gravity exists, but the theory to describe how it works(first Isaac Newton's, and now Einstien's) can change. Scientific facts are subject to change with new evidence. Creationism relies solely on the bible and it's unprovable claims.

I understand what you're saying, that both groups of people think they have the absolute right answer, but a true scientist doesn't think that way. There's no absolutes and we might discover something new tomorrow.
Where in the Bible does it say the Earth's exact age? It doesn't. It's an a.ssumption. How do you think scientist determined the age of the Earth? It's determined by radioactive dating which is also, based on an a.ssumptions. Radioactivity was discovered a little over a 100 years ago, but yet we a.ssume we know how it decayed billions of years prior? How can you say something based on a.ssumptions discredits something else based on a.ssumptions?

Do you not realize most of all scientific methods relie on a simple a.ssumption?
 5 years ago '07        #44
JordanWest86 23 heat pts23
space
avatar space
space
$3,841 | Props total: 2107 2107


Uploaded with


Maybe you not as smart as u think u are?
 08-30-2012, 01:13 PM         #45
kevante 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 Kadillac87 said:
Where in the Bible does it say the Earth's exact age? It doesn't. It's an a.ssumption. How do you think scientist determined the age of the Earth? It's determined by radioactive dating which is also, based on an a.ssumptions. Radioactivity was discovered a little over a 100 years ago, but yet we a.ssume we know how it decayed billions of years prior? How can you say something based on a.ssumptions discredits something else based on a.ssumptions?

Do you not realize most of all scientific methods relie on a simple a.ssumption?

I never said the bible said that I'm talking about Creationism and what they believe. They try to prove claims in the bible with psuedo science.

What about the dinosaurs?

Simply put, they lived concurrent with man down through the thousands of years of our existence, and they appear to have gone mostly extinct prior to our modern era. Remember that the word "dinosaur" is only about 170 years old. Legends of dangerous reptilian creatures (a.k.a. dragons) have been passed down to us from our ancestors across Europe, from China and the rest of Asia, all over the Americas (North, South & Central), and they're remembered in Africa too. Why should all of these legends/histories (spanning all inhabited continents, mind you!) be trivialized and discounted just to give credence to the temporary theory of evolution? It is important in science to separate the evidence from the interpretation. The evidence is that there have been these large dangerous reptilian creatures. We have bones, recorded history and footprints; we have strong evidence. The interpretation (or belief) that they all died off millions and millions of years ago is in dispute between creationists and evolutionists. And numerous stories in recorded human history of being k!lled by dragons/dinosaurs and of us banding together to k!ll them in return (among other important evidence) is clearly on our side ... as creation theory grows stronger each year.

Didn't the dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago?

There is good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old. In BOOKS, see Dr. Ackerman's It's a Young World After All. The "65 million years" is a recent mental invention. Evolution provides a mental hiding place from our powerful Creator. Evolution claims (theologically) that our God is weak or non-existent. Right? Think about what evolution claims about our origins. Dragons (per the previous FAQ answer) were seen and sometimes fought by our ancestors on all inhabited continents. Our ancestors were honest in recording sightings of large dangerous reptilian creatures. They lived concurrent with man. Humans saw dinosaurs. Sure, stories later became embellished, but the germ of truth that humans and dinosaurs (dragons) lived at the same time remains accurate. They lived in different places ... but at the same time - until the dinosaurs were mostly driven to extinction. (There are still a few living dinos out there, by the way.)

4004 B.C. ... you can't be serious!!

There are actually several different versions of what is called "creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that. From we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry.


And Radioactive DECAY is a fact not an a.ssumption. Radioactive DATING is based on the FACT of Radioactive DECAY. It's provable, can be easily observed in nature, and be recreated.

I can't believe you said that about radioactive dating. Maybe measuring it isn't down to an EXACT science yet, but it's pretty accurate. Take ONE chemistry class in college, and you'll see how easy it is to observe and prove radioactive decay.

Scientific Method doesn't rely on a.ssumption You prove something through an experiment, then it must be able to be recreated over and over again.

Example Experiment: Hypothesis: If I throw a ball in the air, it will drop back down to Earth-->Throw Ball-->It drops down--> Conclusion: if I throw a ball into the air, it drops down to Earth. --->Said experiment gets recreated and modified countless times, and results are exactly the same. Form theory to describe why this happens. Theory gets tested through more experiments.

Where's the a.ssumption? Tell me about Creationists methods


Last edited by kevante; 08-30-2012 at 01:35 PM..
 5 years ago '07        #46
JordanWest86 23 heat pts23
space
avatar space
space
$3,841 | Props total: 2107 2107
 kevante said:
I never said the bible said that I'm talking about Creationism and what they believe. They try to prove claims in the bible with psuedo science.



And Radioactive decay is a fact Radioactive decay isn't based on a.ssumptions. It's provable, can be easily observed in nature, and be recreated.

I can't believe you said that about radioactive dating. Maybe measuring it isn't down to an EXACT science yet, but it's pretty fu*king accurate.
Yes its a fact that there have been actual samples maybe to decay and turn to stone in a few decades or a hundred years or so but that doesnt mean that the conditions were the same for all the past years.

It is unknown precisely how conditions were 1,000 years ago. Therefore, if you dont know how conditions were then how can you be certain if something is 2,000 or 20,000 years old through radioactive decay.

You really cant and even the best unbiased scientists say this. How would an ice age or a drought or any extreme worldly occurence or production that we still may not know about affect radioactive decay is unknown.
 5 years ago '11        #47
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 kevante said:



And Radioactive decay is a fact Radioactive decay isn't based on a.ssumptions. It's provable, can be easily observed in nature, and be recreated.

I can't believe you said that about radioactive dating. Maybe measuring it isn't down to an EXACT science yet, but it's pretty fu*king accurate.



I suggest you go read up on radioactive decay if you think it isn't based on a.ssumptions. We discovered radioactivity in 1896. How do we know at what rate it decayed in 1895? We don't. Radioactive dating makes the a.ssumption that the decay rate is constant and conditions hasn't changed. If you don't know that very basic concept then you just don't need to comment on it.



Just because something is observable doesn't make it a fact. Gravity was a fact, until it was proved it doesn't work in all situations. Again, most all scientific methods relie on a simple, reasonable a.ssumption. Not fact, but a.ssumption.
 5 years ago '08        #48
tdnupe3 9 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$6,108 | Props total: 12390 12390
 keen77 said:
He didn't "just snap his fingers" though. He created the heavens and the earth in 7 days, taking a full day just for man.
&
"But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." 2 Peter 3:8

so who really knows? Only God. Those who accept the free gift of salvation, not a religion, but a relationship with Christ Jesus, who came "not to judge the world, but to save it" from sin and from death, will find out all in Heaven one day.


Small parts to the theory of evolution are certainly true, as planned and permitted by God. However to take it in its extremist whole, as a substitute for a God making us "fearfully and wonderfully" as His "craftsmanship," is to deny our very identity and glory, while attempting humanistic justification, explanation and self-glorification. Ironic?
This is a really good post. I see both sides of the coin. I honestly believe the truth is a mixture of the two extreme ideas. While I agree that species do change over time to adapt and survive etc., I also believe that was the "plan". Things are too perfect for them to have just happened by accident. With that being said, I still stand by my argument that creationism is the only way ancient cultures could explain the science behind creating humans. Believing in creationism and believing in a "prometheus" type of explanation are more similar than people want to admit.

The difference (and the argument) comes about when discussing the "divinity" of the Grand Creator. Believing in either extreme is not logical, but believing in a combination of the two does not make a person a religious extremist or an infidel.

The truth is............................. the answer is within you. Understanding who you are and becoming in tune with your, body, mind, and spirit (energy or soul) will bring you closer to the answer than you think. Understanding that we are ALL connected (EVERYTHING IN NATURE) is to truly understand who you are, where you come from, and where you are going.

Look at it like this: planets are created from the matter resulting from an exploding star. So whether you believe God created you from dust, or you came from a primordial soup, the same stuff that is in a star IS IN YOU.

Energy is the invisible tissue that binds us all together. Putting out negative energy is bad FOR THE PLANET. Put out good energy and watch YOUR ENTIRE LIFE CHANGE.

JUST MY $.02


Last edited by tdnupe3; 08-30-2012 at 03:00 PM..
 5 years ago '05        #49
ReppinDaBurghh 55 heat pts55
space
avatar space
space
$53,467 | Props total: 7116 7116
 Andrefrbk said:
The fact that its probably so rare to see a planet like ours, means that another "earth" would probably be very very far away, and we will probably never know. But a.ssuming humans and survive for another 2 billion years. Maybe, who knows. We might make contact, or another earth like planet might make contact.
Two billion years?



Do you realize how far we have come in space exploration in the past 100 years? Lol at 2 billion. Not gonna be even a fraction of that. Nowhere even close to a million, imo.
 5 years ago '05        #50
ReppinDaBurghh 55 heat pts55
space
avatar space
space
$53,467 | Props total: 7116 7116
 TheInevitable24 said:
Evolution is just as improbable as religion
You cannot possibly be this stupid.
 08-30-2012, 01:50 PM         #51
kevante 
space
space
space
$n/a | Props total:  
 JordanWest86 said:
Yes its a fact that there have been actual samples maybe to decay and turn to stone in a few decades or a hundred years or so but that doesnt mean that the conditions were the same for all the past years.

It is unknown precisely how conditions were 1,000 years ago. Therefore, if you dont know how conditions were then how can you be certain if something is 2,000 or 20,000 years old through radioactive decay.

You really cant and even the best unbiased scientists say this. How would an ice age or a drought or any extreme worldly occurence or production that we still may not know about affect radioactive decay is unknown.
That's not what radioactive decay is. It's not the same as decay. You're talking about 2 different things and mixing them up. Radioactive decay, has to do with how long an atom of an element becomes destabilized. So, as long as the thing we are measuring, has atoms of a known element, we use math to apply the rate of decay in order to figure out the age.

Let's say you lose 5 lbs a year. You weigh 100 lbs right now, but originally you weighed 150 lbs. So, how long have you been losing weight? Since we know the Rate of decay(5 lbs/year) we can calculate that you have lost weight for 10 years.

That's just a super simple example, obviously it's more complicated than that, and isn't linear.

 Kadillac87 said:



I suggest you go read up on radioactive decay if you think it isn't based on a.ssumptions. We discovered radioactivity in 1896. How do we know at what rate it decayed in 1895? We don't. Radioactive dating makes the a.ssumption that the decay rate is constant and conditions hasn't changed. If you don't know that very basic concept then you just don't need to comment on it.



Just because something is observable doesn't make it a fact. Gravity was a fact, until it was proved it doesn't work in all situations. Again, most all scientific methods relie on a simple, reasonable a.ssumption. Not fact, but a.ssumption.
Are you serious? You're talking to a BS chem major, now grad student and you're trying to school me on decay. Where do you teach at, professor

1) what are you talking about? What does that date have to do with anything? Radioactive decay is measurable RATE. We use simple math to calculate it, just like we would use math to calculate the age of a savings account with 5% interest, which is now worth $1000, but originally started with an investment of $500. If the account is now worth $1000, we can calculate how old the account is. Simple, simple stuff.

2)
Just because something is observable doesn't make it a fact. Gravity was a fact, until it was proved it doesn't work in all situations.


First of all, Gravity is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. What you are trying to refer to(i think) is the THEORY of Gravitation. Specifically, Sir Issac Newton's theory of gravitation. A THEORY is used to describe and attempt to explain SCIENTIFIC FACT. Yes, you are right, Newton's theory of gravity was not correct because it did not work in all models, SO now we use Albert Einstein's Theory of gravitation, which may one day be disproven by another, better theory. We know gravity exists, we just don't know the exact mechanism which makes it work.

IN NO TIME WHATSOEVER, DID GRAVITY STOP BEING A SCIENTIFIC FACT. NONE.

And you're highlighting one of the greatest things about science, it is open to change! No absolutes! You can't say the same for Creationism, because it's based on a collection of ancient stories written by men which we know nothing about. Except from the ancient stories, which were written by men....


Last edited by kevante; 08-30-2012 at 02:04 PM..
 5 years ago '08        #52
The Fifth KD 2 heat pts
space
space
space
$3,480 | Props total: 1272 1272
 tdnupe3 said:
Believing that a "guy in the sky" snapped his fingers and created humans is just a silly notion. It sounds like a bedtime story to explain human origins to a small child.

On the other hand, to believe that life on earth came about as some cosmic accident is just as silly. Things are too perfect for there to not have been a "designer".

Just my $.02
Perfect my a.ss.

70% of this planet is uninhabitable by humans.

Meteor strikes wiped out entire species.

Natural disasters decimate entire countries yearly.

And that's from geological/meteorological perspective.

When looking from a biology perspective, diseases, birth defects, disabilities and other run rampant in all families of the biota kingdom.

And from an astronomical perspective, what the fu*k are the other planets in our solar system then? Was god just fu*king around with making them and said "ehhhh i guess Ill make this ONE PLANET habitable by living organisms and the other ones will just be there so humans can have sh*t to look at in space" ?

People can't live with the (probable) fact that life is a happy accident. We just have to be "special".
 5 years ago '05        #53
ReppinDaBurghh 55 heat pts55
space
avatar space
space
$53,467 | Props total: 7116 7116
 JordanWest86 said:
How is it so unreal that the bible failed to mention dinosaurs and their extinction. I dont understand how that one topic can be so unreal to you. There are many animals and things not mentioned in the bible. It is not a book of inventory made for everything on this earth and everything thats happened in this earth's existence.

What are you talking about, there is no mention of its earliest lifeform that became us? Do you know the amount of science and history that has been wrong in the past. Its like you're throwing all your eggs into science and man thought facts.

Do you know that there was a time that man thought we had found the best insulation man could make? We needed better insulation for both the hot and cold weather and electricity costs were going up. Engineers and science solved the problem and made the ultra component, they made another product that put everything else to shame. It was better than all other insulation BY FAR and easier to install. It was also cheaper to make per foot than glass.

So we put it EVERYWHERE. In energy plants, homes, and most of all in SCHOOLS (mostly elementary schools since those were more rampant at the time)

Well about 20 years later we found out this ASBESTOS INSULATION caused cancer and not just any cancer, mesothelioma. The only cancer that has yet to be cured. The Bubonic Plague of cancers and its all over schools built in the mid 1900's.

We thought we were doing good for mankind as a whole and helping all families make it with rising energy costs but we werent as smart as we thought.
What the hell does this have to do with anything? You're saying we made a mistake, then realized we made a mistake, and took steps to fix it. Sounds pretty logical to me.

Scientists, and humans in general, are always changing their idea's and opinion's on things, realizing they were wrong about something and fixing it or coming up with a new solution (Or new theory).

When's the last time creationists saw the flawed logic in something and changed their opinion on it? To them it's "This is how it happened. Nothing you can say or do will change my opinion on it. This is simply what happened".

If some evidence popped up tomorrow discounting Evolution, I would have no problem analyzing the evidence and changing my stance on the subject. That's the whole reason creationists frustrate us. They don't use logic in arguments and it is pointless to argue with them.

I am changing my opinion about the origins of the Universe all the time, constantly. I take in everything I read/watch/hear and it alters my perception of everything.

Logic.
 5 years ago '09        #54
KNerd 2 heat pts
space
space
space
$524 | Props total: 1 1
 kevante said:
That's not what radioactive decay is. It's not the same as decay. You're talking about 2 different things and mixing them up. Radioactive decay, has to do with how long an atom of an element becomes destabilized. So, as long as the thing we are measuring, has atoms of a known element, we use math to apply the rate of decay in order to figure out the age.

Let's say you lose 5 lbs a year. You weigh 100 lbs right now, but originally you weighed 150 lbs. So, how long have you been losing weight? Since we know the Rate of decay(5 lbs/year) we can calculate that you have lost weight for 10 years.

That's just a super simple example, obviously it's more complicated than that, and isn't linear.



Are you serious? You're talking to a BS chem major, now grad student and you're trying to school me on decay. Where do you teach at, professor

1) what are you talking about? What does that date have to do with anything? Radioactive decay is measurable RATE. We use simple math to calculate it, just like we would use math to calculate the age of a savings account with 5% interest, which is now worth $1000, but originally started with an investment of $500. If the account is now worth $1000, we can calculate how old the account is. Simple, simple stuff.

2)

First of all, Gravity is a SCIENTIFIC FACT. What you are trying to refer to(i think) is the THEORY of Gravitation. Specifically, Sir Issac Newton's theory of gravitation. A THEORY is used to describe and attempt to explain SCIENTIFIC FACT. Yes, you are right, Newton's theory of gravity was not correct because it did not work in all models, SO now we use Albert Einstein's Theory of gravitation, which may one day be disproven by another, better theory. We know gravity exists, we just don't know the exact mechanism which makes it work.

IN NO TIME WHATSOEVER, DID GRAVITY STOP BEING A SCIENTIFIC FACT. NONE.

And you're highlighting one of the greatest things about science, it is open to change! No absolutes! You can't say the same for Creationism, because it's based on a collection of ancient stories written by men which we know nothing about. Except from the ancient stories, which were written by men....
You might have overheated his brain with that severe dose of logic and reason you just dropped
 5 years ago '11        #55
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 kevante said:



Are you serious? You're talking to a BS chem major, now grad student and you're trying to school me on decay. Where do you teach at, professor

.
Are you serious? You really want to get into a pissing match about your degree?



[pic - click to view]




From a top 5 engineering program. Don't even try it with me son. I think I would know




And yes, decay is a measurable rate. All measurable rates depend on a constant. That constant is a.ssumed to be constant throughout the entire process. You're gonna tell me we have observed U-238 for over 4 billion years to determine it's half-life when we only known about radioactivity for a little over 100? Clearly, it is relying on a HUGE a.ssumption.

And yes, gravity is scientific fact but it is not a fact. It's a theory. At one point, the Earth being flat was considered a scientific fact. At one point, the Earth being the center of the universe was considered scientific fact. Scientific facts are not absolute truths and are subject to change. So wouldn't it be illogical to say science, in it's ever changing state, disproves or discredits something?


Last edited by Kadillac87; 08-30-2012 at 02:48 PM..
 5 years ago '08        #56
tdnupe3 9 heat pts
space
avatar space
space
$6,108 | Props total: 12390 12390
 The Fifth KD said:
Perfect my a.ss.

70% of this planet is uninhabitable by humans.

Meteor strikes wiped out entire species.

Natural disasters decimate entire countries yearly.

And that's from geological/meteorological perspective.

When looking from a biology perspective, diseases, birth defects, disabilities and other run rampant in all families of the biota kingdom.

And from an astronomical perspective, what the fu*k are the other planets in our solar system then? Was god just fu*king around with making them and said "ehhhh i guess Ill make this ONE PLANET habitable by living organisms and the other ones will just be there so humans can have sh*t to look at in space" ?

People can't live with the (probable) fact that life is a happy accident. We just have to be "special".
 tdnupe3 said:
This is a really good post. I see both sides of the coin. I honestly believe the truth is a mixture of the two extreme ideas. While I agree that species do change over time to adapt and survive etc., I also believe that was the "plan". Things are too perfect for them to have just happened by accident. With that being said, I still stand by my argument that creationism is the only way ancient cultures could explain the science behind creating humans. Believing in creationism and believing in a "prometheus" type of explanation are more similar than people want to admit.

The difference (and the argument) comes about when discussing the "divinity" of the Grand Creator. Believing in either extreme is not logical, but believing in a combination of the two does not make a religious extremist or an infidel.

The truth is............................. the answer is within you. Understanding who you are and becoming in tune with your, body, mind, and spirit (energy or soul) will bring you closer to the answer than you think. Understanding that we are ALL connected (EVERYTHING IN NATURE) is to truly understand who you are, where you come from, and where you are going.

Look at it like this: planets are created from the matter resulting from an exploding star. So whether you believe God created you from dust, or you came from a primordial soup, the same stuff that is in a star IS IN YOU.

Energy is the invisible tissue that binds us all together. Putting out negative energy is bad FOR THE PLANET. Put out good energy and watch YOUR ENTIRE LIFE CHANGE.

JUST MY $.02
My apologies for quoting myself. BUT, as to your argument: You make some very valid points. I'm not going to say that you're wrong. I can't prove your argument incorrect. Can you prove that it is correct? Scientifically, that is.

It is all just best guess.

And yes, we are special as a species and as a planet. 70% of the planet is not inhabitable for us. People live on submarines for months at a time if not years. And don't forget that you survived for nine months in liquid.

Life on this planet has survived countless events that should have made the planet inhabitable for everything, yet here we are. It is as close to perfect as we have seen in the universe to date (in recorded history that is).

I'm not here to argue for or against any specific theory or idea. I believe there are little truths from several theories and ideas sprinkled about here and there.


Last edited by tdnupe3; 08-30-2012 at 02:58 PM..
 5 years ago '07        #57
JordanWest86 23 heat pts23
space
avatar space
space
$3,841 | Props total: 2107 2107
 ReppinDaBurghh said:
What the hell does this have to do with anything? You're saying we made a mistake, then realized we made a mistake, and took steps to fix it. Sounds pretty logical to me.

Scientists, and humans in general, are always changing their idea's and opinion's on things, realizing they were wrong about something and fixing it or coming up with a new solution (Or new theory).

When's the last time creationists saw the flawed logic in something and changed their opinion on it? To them it's "This is how it happened. Nothing you can say or do will change my opinion on it. This is simply what happened".

If some evidence popped up tomorrow discounting Evolution, I would have no problem analyzing the evidence and changing my stance on the subject. That's the whole reason creationists frustrate us. They don't use logic in arguments and it is pointless to argue with them.

I am changing my opinion about the origins of the Universe all the time, constantly. I take in everything I read/watch/hear and it alters my perception of everything.

Logic.

Its sayin that it doesnt matter that just b/c you try to bring science into somethin, that its 100% accurate. The points you make towards being right are extremely flawed. They are a.ssumptions b/c we were not there. We dont know the temperatures or environments of thousands of years ago. It can be that we never discovered it or saw it or heard about it. It can be a brand new environment to us so how can we determine anything from it?

Being so sure about something isnt always good just like being so sure about Asbestos ended up k!lling a whole lot of ppl, including my uncle, b/c we didnt know it was harmful. We didnt know it was harmful b/c it takes about 20 yrs to become harmful.

So I think its safe to say that theres a lot of things we dont know until they happen.

Therefore, the past will then be very difficult to predict if we cant even understand the present.
 5 years ago '10        #58
TheMindOf 21 heat pts21
space
avatar space
space
$27,749 | Props total: 16554 16554
 JordanWest86 said:


Uploaded with


Maybe you not as smart as u think u are?



Not sure what that's actually from, but there is NO mention of dinosaurs ANYWHERE in the actual bible.

Please, tell me what verse in the Bible, this accompanies

I'll wait.


This is a list of all of the animals mentioned in the bible

Addax (Light-colored, large Saharan antelope) - Deuteronomy 14:5
Ant - Proverbs 6:6; 30:25
Antelope - Deuteronomy 14:5; Isaiah 51:20
Ape - 1 Kings 10:22
Bald Locust - Leviticus 11:22
Barn Owl - Leviticus 11:18
Bat - Leviticus 11:19; Isaiah 2:20
Bear - 1 Samuel 17:34-37; 2 Kings 2:24; Isaiah 11:7; Daniel 7:5; Revelation 13:2
Bee - Judges 14:8
Behemoth - (A monstrous and mighty land animal; Some say it's a mythical monster of ancient literature; Possible reference to dinosaurs.) Job 40:15
Buzzard - Isaiah 34:15
Camel - Genesis 24:10; Leviticus 11:4; Isaiah 30:6; Matthew 3:4; 19:24; 23:24
Chameleon - Leviticus 11:30
Cobra - Isaiah 11:8
Cormorant (large black water bird) - Leviticus 11:17
Cow - Isaiah 11:7; Daniel 4:25; Luke 14:5
Crane - Isaiah 38:14
Cricket - Leviticus 11:22
Deer - Deuteronomy 12:15; 14:5
Dog - Judges 7:5; 1 Kings 21:23-24; Ecclesiastes 9:4; Matthew 15:26-27; Luke 16:21; 2 Peter 2:22; Revelation 22:15
Donkey - Isaiah 1:3; 30:6 John 12:14
Dove - Genesis 8:8; 2 Kings 6:25; Matthew 3:16; 10:16; John 2:16
Eagle - Exodus 19:4; Isaiah 40:31; Ezekiel 1:10; Daniel 7:4; Revelation 4:7; 12:14
Eagle Owl - Leviticus 11:16
Egyptian Vulture - Leviticus 11:18
Falcon - Leviticus 11:14
Fish - Exodus 7:18; Jonah 1:17; Matthew 14:17; 17:27; Luke 24:42; John 21:9
Flea - 1 Samuel 24:14; 26:20
Fly - Ecclesiastes 10:1
Fox - Judges 15:4; Nehemiah 4:3; Matthew 8:20; Luke 13:32
Frog - Exodus 8:2; Revelation 16:13
Gazelle - Deuteronomy 12:15; 14:5
Gecko - Leviticus 11:30
Gnat - Exodus 8:16; Matthew 23:24
Goat - 1 Samuel 17:34; Genesis 15:9; 37:31; Daniel 8:5; Leviticus 16:7; Matthew 25:33
Grasshopper - Leviticus 11:22
Great Fish (Whale) - Jonah 1:17
Great Owl - Leviticus 11:17
Hare - Leviticus 11:6
Hawk - Leviticus 11:16; Job 39:26
Heron - Leviticus 11:19
Hoopoe - Leviticus 11:19
Horse - 1 Kings 4:26; 2 Kings 2:11; Revelation 6:2-8; 19:14
Hyena - Isaiah 34:14
Hyrax (Coney or Rock Badger) - Leviticus 11:5
Kite - Leviticus 11:14
Lamb - Genesis 4:2; 1 Samuel 17:34
Leech - Proverbs 30:15
Leopard - Isaiah 11:6; Jeremiah 13:23; Daniel 7:6; Revelation 13:2
Leviathan - (Could be an earthly creature, crocodile; Some say it's a mythical sea monster of ancient literature; Possible reference to dinosaurs.) Isaiah 27:1; Psalm 74:14; Job 41:1
Lion - Judges 14:8; 1 Kings 13:24; Isaiah 30:6; 65:25; Daniel 6:7; Ezekiel 1:10; 1 Peter 5:8; Revelation 4:7; 13:2
Lizard - Leviticus 11:30
Locust - Exodus 10:4; Leviticus 11:22; Joel 1:4; Matthew 3:4; Revelation 9:3
Maggot - Job 7:5; 17:14; 21:26; Isaiah 14:11; Mark 9:48
Mole Rat - Leviticus 11:29
Monitor Lizard - Leviticus 11:30
Moth - Matthew 6:19; Isaiah 50:9; 51:8
Mountain Sheep - Deuteronomy 14:5
Mourning Dove - Isaiah 38:14
Mule - 2 Samuel 18:9; 1 Kings 1:38
Ostrich - Lamentations 4:3
Owl - Leviticus 11:17; Isaiah 34:15; Psalm 102:6
Ox - 1 Samuel 11:7; 2 Samuel 6:6; 1 Kings 19:20-21; Job 40:15; Isaiah 1:3; Ezekiel 1:10
Partridge - 1 Samuel 26:20
Peacock - 1 Kings 10:22
Pig - Leviticus 11:7; Deuteronomy 14:8; Proverbs 11:22; Isaiah 65:4; 66:3, 17; Matthew 7:6; 8:31; 2 Peter 2:22
Pigeon - Genesis 15:9; Luke 2:24
Quail - Exodus 16:13; Numbers 11:31
Ram - Genesis 15:9; Exodus 25:5
Rat - Leviticus 11:29
Raven - Genesis 8:7; Leviticus 11:15; 1 Kings 17:4
Rodent - Isaiah 2:20
Roe Deer - Deuteronomy 14:5
Rooster - Matthew 26:34
Scorpion - 1 Kings 12:11, 14; Luke 10:19; Revelation 9:3, 5, 10
Seagull - Leviticus 11:16
Serpent - Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9
Sheep - Exodus 12:5; 1 Samuel 17:34; Matthew 25:33; Luke 15:4; John 10:7
Short-eared Owl - Leviticus 11:16
Snail - Psalm 58:8
Snake - Exodus 4:3; Numbers 21:9; Proverbs 23:32; Isaiah 11:8; 30:6; 59:5
Sparrow - Matthew 10:31
Spider - Isaiah 59:5
Stork - Leviticus 11:19
Swallow - Isaiah 38:14
Turtledove - Genesis 15:9; Luke 2:24
Viper - Isaiah 30:6; Proverbs 23:32
Vulture (Griffon, Bearded, and Black) - Leviticus 11:13
Wild Goat - Deuteronomy 14:5
Wild Ox - Numbers 23:22
Wolf - Isaiah 11:6; Matthew 7:15
Worm - Isaiah 66:24; Jonah 4:7

You mean to tell me that of all the Animals that existed, they somehow forgot dinosaurs .

Really?


[pic - click to view]



They forgot all of these guys.
 5 years ago '04        #59
Screwhead|m 194 heat pts194
space
avatar space
space
$14,976 | Props total: 278 278
 stlcardinals19 said:
That's me, personally, I really don't have any problems w/anyone believing in God, I don't, but I've seen it bring some hope to those that needed it. Can't knock it.


Good man.


 stlcardinals19 said:
But there've been court challenges to adhere to a more Christian-style of teaching towards all kids, most notably in Texas and in LA. Granted I'm veering away from a singular God, here, and more towards the Christian God, but just work w/me.
Those challenges need to be appealed, as well as the challenges stopping children (on their own) from practicing their religious beliefs on school grounds.

Parents should also take their children out of those schools, if they disagree with the procedures.

But with "public" (government) schools being a Communist ideology, it's no surprise children/parents have something FORCED on them no matter what.


 stlcardinals19 said:
But doesn't that mean those same decisions can be questioned?
Personal, private, non-violent, everyday decisions?

No, they shouldn't be questioned.

Not unless you want to intrude into someone else's personal affairs.


You, me, Bill Nye, or anyone else questioning those decisions (beliefs, in this case) is not knowledgeable enough of the afterlife to definitively know the answers.


 stlcardinals19 said:
Again, I've no problems w/a belief in God, but I DO have had some w/those who believe in God. I have famo that's Gay, and not only can they get married but they cannot even adopt children through the Christian-run adopting agencies.
"Christian-run" adopting agencies are the only local/State options?


 stlcardinals19 said:
The only way for them, and their supporters to sway public opinion is to attack, and deligitimize the Christian belief.
Fully knowing they (like anyone else) don't know the makeup of the afterlife, to question anyone religiously (and peacefully) believing what they choose.


 stlcardinals19 said:
Their(Christians/Muslims) claim is b/c of God's word, and so if you work to prove God's word isn't very real, then public's perception on their rights to marry and be parents sways to a positive note, no?
No, it just pisses people off, causes more instability/anger amongst fellow Americans, and continues tearing down our Constitutional Rights.

Reading/researching the religious doctrine(s) and refuting claims of "believers" with quoted passages is the most effective way.

Being ideologues of the same fascistic nature doesn't solve anything; it makes things worse, and makes hypocrites of the detractors.


 stlcardinals19 said:
I'd say it's foul attacking another beliefs if you already had the right that belief was opposed to, but for folks, like my cuzzo, it's not there, so they're gonna have to do what they need to do. That's really why I said the burden of proof relies on those making a positive claim, b/c I feel the govt should step in on this issues.
Anyone impressing a definitive answer onto someone else is who has the burden of proof.

Religious/spiritual or Atheist.

There is no Right to marry in the Constitution for anyone, homos3xual or straight. That is why the States & State Citizens have authority to decide these matters.

Homos3xuals can start their own churches/religious centers, or their own adoptive agencies.....that would be taking charge of the situation.

If you want something done right, do it yourself.


Or at the very least, sue the State to allow for equal treatment of adoptive procedures.


Being proactive not only gets things done, but preserves the Rule of Law.


Last edited by Screwhead; 08-30-2012 at 05:43 PM..
 5 years ago '11        #60
Kadillac87 225 heat pts225
space
avatar space
space
$17,495 | Props total: 6665 6665
 TheMindOf said:


Not sure what that's actually from, but there is NO mention of dinosaurs ANYWHERE in the actual bible.

Please, tell me what verse in the Bible, this accompanies

I'll wait.


This is a list of all of the animals mentioned in the bible




You mean to tell me that of all the Animals that existed, they somehow forgot dinosaurs .

Really?


[pic - click to view]



They forgot all of these guys.
What animal is Job 40: 15-24 describing?

“Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?

Even your own evidence says it's a possible reference to dinosaurs.


Last edited by Kadillac87; 08-30-2012 at 05:49 PM..
Home      
  
 

 






most viewed right now
 44
joie chavis
34 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 29
Infinity War Countdown - 140 days left: Disney pulls dick out on the entertain..
88 comments
2 days ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 26
Image(s) inside Dec 15 - China is raising the next generation of African elites by tra..
52 comments
1 day ago
@news
most viewed right now
 15
Video inside Roseanne Revival Gets Premiere Date on ABC — Watch Season 10 Teaser
57 comments
2 days ago
@movies
most viewed right now
 10
Image(s) inside Who are these washed up niggas next to Drake?
66 comments
2 days ago
@hiphop
most viewed right now
 9
Ashamed Of Pixel Sales, Google Begins Hiding Pixel Launcher Install Count In P..
4 comments
1 day ago
@tech
most viewed right now
 9
Erykah badu shows that fur burger
94 comments
1 day ago
@thotsdimesetc
most viewed right now
 5
Image(s) inside XXXTentacles facing 77 years in jail :niggaomg:
189 comments
1 day ago
@hiphop
back to top
register contact Follow BX @ Twitter Follow BX @ Facebook search BX privacy